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!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!news.gnuher.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were not turned off? Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:12:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87ipvk6vva.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <82d3lsvqw7.fsf@stephe-leake.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ruchba.enyo.de 1300216361 1929 172.17.135.6 (15 Mar 2011 19:12:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de Cancel-Lock: sha1:wEhBGqA2pOuR9gk/wNP5zuWawY4= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19189 Date: 2011-03-15T20:12:41+01:00 List-Id: * Stephen Leake: > Elias Salom�o Helou Neto writes: > >> I have followed the (quite lenghty) on a topic, IIRC, about bitwise >> operators, which eventually lead to people mentioning the Ariane 5 >> case. >> >> Since then I have been wondering. If compiler checking where actually >> turned on, what would have happened? How could it avoid the disaster? > > Just to remind people; the real problem was that Ariane 4 code was > reused on Ariane 5, without carefully considering the design, also > without adequate testing. It's odd that after all those years, little hard data is available on the defect. The published report uses terminology which is a slightly bit off in the Ada context, so it led only to further speculation. There is alleged source code floating around, but it is an obvious fabrication by someone who is not an Ada programmer (there are syntax errors).