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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 15:47:32 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!diablo.voicenet.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems
Date: 26 Dec 2003 17:47:29 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <MKVYIv1ULvP$@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com>
 <p$OIcVFWHL7$EA6t@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1072482359 16352 192.135.80.34 (26 Dec 2003
 23:45:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:59 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:6137 comp.lang.ada:3832
Date: 2003-12-26T17:47:29-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <p$OIcVFWHL7$EA6t@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
> In article <bcEFNEK9esyI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen
> <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> writes
>>In article <$km9afA3DB7$EAYO@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills 
>><chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>>> In article <3fea086c.110513550@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Dave Hansen
>>> <iddw@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>>But C can be, umm, subtle, and static checking tools (particularly
>>>>Lint) are IMHO _required_.  Sadly, they're not often used.
>>> 
>>> There is NO EXCUSE for not using a static analyser on C.
>>
>>Certainly there is an excuse -- it is not enforced by the compiler.
>>
>>That is quite different from the situation with Ada.
> 
> So it all has to be enforced by the compiler?
> 
> The main difference between C and ADa is that the average ADA programmer
> is in a safety critical environment. The average C programmer is not. 
> 
> If C program development was *normally* taught as though it was going to
> be used in a safety critical environment I think things would change. 

Whereas I think that so long as the infrastructure leaves certain things
to be done "by hand" there will be skimping.

Consider all the regulation and oversight required for drug safety tests.