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-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were not
 turned off?
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:12:02 +0200
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <8ujdrjFe8cU1@mid.individual.net>
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><4d814af0$0$43831$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <m2tyf2h9sp.fsf@pushface.org>
 <4d8200cb$0$43837$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <8ueh3mF3rgU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4d8475d4$0$43834$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net UV9YHGwM4qgrU7q1OEPPTgJ/OHh7PSfFeZ0kby9sWzwY0VS6tq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PCXtGyuBIbOE936/G7ll5dFg4OY=
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100328)
In-Reply-To: <4d8475d4$0$43834$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19284
Date: 2011-03-19T12:12:02+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

robin wrote:
> Niklas Holsti wrote in message <8ueh3mF3rgU1@mid.individual.net>...
>> robin wrote:
>>> Simon Wright wrote in message ...
>>>> "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> But only if the error was hardware, which it wasn't.
>>>> No, and it wasn't bloody software either!!!
>>> I'm afraid that it was (software).
>>> Consider this:  If just ONE unprotected overflow occurs,
>>> the mission is lost.
>> No. If the unprotected overflow occurs because of a hardware fault or
>> noise in one computer only, the mission continues with the other computer.
> 
> If there is a problem with one computer,
> the mission continues with the other computer, as you say.

Ok.

> However, if an unprotected overflow occurs at any of those 3 unprotected
> conversions from float to integer, the mission is doomed.

Only if the overflow happens in both computers, which was my point, and 
which you, Robin, seemed to ignore. As I understand it, in the Ariane 4 
that would have been most unlikely, but it was a certainty in the Ariane 
501.

Robin, it seems to me that you are not trying to understand the 
arguments that other posters make against your position.

The rest of your reply to me just repeats your earlier claims, so I 
won't comment on it.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .