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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: KK6GM <mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were
 notturned off?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <80bba114-af88-4bb1-bd51-91c61578f27f@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <a8387564-0835-467d-a461-60a093c38133@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vscizsqqlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <op.vsf7vmtblzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d810172$0$4954$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <d6e065fb-7271-42d5-812c-83912c8721a5@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <be72bf74-0a79-4bd0-a285-b6d9f6b37669@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <4d81273c$0$4910$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.35.64.226
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300310874 17097 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2011 21:27:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:27:54 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.35.64.226;
 posting-account=qZVz2QoAAAAN9WxYp-9jYb7jORc4Zqwt
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 barracudaweb.tritool.rancho:8080 (http_scan/4.0.2.6.19)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
 Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30;
 .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDR; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E;
 InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19233
Date: 2011-03-16T14:27:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 16, 2:10=A0pm, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2011 5:04 PM, Shark8 wrote:
>
> > "Ignore it and continue operation" is, in a word, WRONG.
>
> I hope this is implemented on the flight software of the
> next airplane you fly on. On the contrary, ignore it and
> continue operation may be exactly the right thing to do,
> because the fault may be absorbed elsewhere and the system
> will continue to carry out its intended purpose.

You are suggesting that _maybe_ the fault will be "absorbed elsewhere"
is a better solution than turning off what is likely (based on your
comprehensive analysis, remember) to be faulty hardware and letting
the backup hardware take over.

In realtime control systems there is usually no such thing as "ignore
it".  To take my 150psi reading example, what if that "too high"
reading causes the coolant valve on your reactor (topical - maybe too
topical?) to go fully closed in attempting to compensate?  By ignoring
it you've lost your cooling.