From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jm59@prism.gatech.edu (John M. Mills) Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical, Date: 1997/04/28 Message-ID: <5k2rlk$hic@acmey.gatech.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238044948 References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com> <3364C8EC.4879@DIE_SPAMMER.dasd.honeywell.com> Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Apa writes: >Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. wrote: >> To: Tim Behrendsen, Kaz Kylheku et al. >> From: Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. >> Vice President Ada_Med >{snip} >> This quote may provide an excellent opportunity in the medical device >> business, which is NOT puny. My question is, Does validation of an Ada >> compiler on a platform provide significant evidence that the processor >> produces valid object code? Would any of the other Ada test suites help? IMH(non-legal)O, respectively: no, and no. I think these are simply the wrong questions. Based solely on what I've read in this thread, it seems very foolish to even discuss programming language selection in this context. My reading was that Intel, for whatever reason, has served notice that some of their products are inappropriate for an entire class of application in which the likelihood and cost of litigation, as well as typical damage awards, are extremely high [at present in the U.S.A.]. Should someone suffer injury from a medical device based on such a product, and the designer of the device be reasonably expected to have checked the appropriateness of his or her processor selection, I would not wish to be the attorney defending them. Of course there is little risk of that, since I am not an attorney and could not give legal advice. However, I can make a pretty good guess what an attorney would advise such a client while they were making their processor selection: avoid like the plague any components for which the manufacturer has issued a disclaimer of suitability for your product's intended use! Regardless of whether the target processor (and/or the host of a cross- development environment) would produce properly executing code, the processor manufacturer has disclaimed assertion that their processor would _execute_ such code in a proper fashion. The same charges could possibly be made against the target operating system (if any), run-time environment, etc. I am not in sympathy with the approach Intel seems to reflect in their statement, and I suspect it might compromise their defense in any liability action which might arise from use of this processor in a non- medical, life-critical application -- which might include anything from avionics to an emergency-response telephone system (or other processors, as I understand the disclaimer was model-specific and one could ask: "Does Intel thus imply that their 80* _is_ appropriate, and how did they determine so?"). I only point out that this is a barndoor-sized exposure with hugely expensive potential consequences. -- John M. Mills, Senior Research Engineer -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0834 Phone contacts: 404.894.0151 (voice), 404.894.6258 (FAX) "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Simulations"