Re: RATIONAL TESTMATE for ADA Testing - Any experiences to share ?

[Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>]

Hi

1) I for one would be happy to see some references about verification in
the avionics world. Verification is a pet subject. You can email me if you
want to answer and think the group will be bored to death.

2) I am not sure what exactly do you mean by "verifaction " "functionally"
and "strcturaly". You surely don't mean "verifiaction" in the sense I am
usually used to i.e., mathematically proven to abide to a formal
specification (ala Z, temporal logic etc.) Do you?

Ehud Lamm     mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il

On Mon, 24 May 1999, Brian Collins wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> Depends on your definition of validation.  In the Avionics wold,
> compiler validation isn't such a big issue.  The big issue is
> verification, not validation.  According to the FAA in numerous
> volumes of references,which I shall not name here for the sake
> of the groups sleeping habits, verification is very important.  In
> any given piece of equipment in an aircraft, every module and
> line of software needs to be verified both functionally and even
> structurally.  This has to include all software in a piece of equipment
> like a compiler Run-Time System (RTS) and any user written
> control software as well.  Having a validated compiler, as I think
> you mean the word, is important to say that functionally the compiler
> will produce the correct code, but that is only a very minor step.  I am
> not familiar with the product you named CSMART, but if it is ever
> used in an avionics box then it has been verified both functionally
> and structurally.  So in essence you have to have validated products.
> All depends on your definition of the terms of course.
> 
> Brian Collins
> brian.collins@www.mebbs.com
> bjcollin@collins.rockwell.com
> http://www.math.swt.edu/~rambo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Dewar wrote in message <7ia9uj$30r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <7i9du6$1a2$1@lure.pipex.net>,
> >  "David Akister" <wellgate@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> With the need for
> >> validated compilers for safety-critical use this does make
> >> life difficult.
> >
> >I find this a bit worrying for two reasons.
> >
> >1) I worry that people read more into validation than is
> >appropriate. Validation is useful as one of many tests for
> >compiler quality, but that is all.
> >
> >2) Safety critical applications are quite likely to be using
> >an Ada subset like CSMART, which cannot possiblybe validated
> >in any case.
> >
> >If the requirement for using a base compiler technology that
> >is validated is just one of many requirements, then that is
> >fine, but I have several times run into people who seem to
> >think that this is
> >
> >a) a vital requirement (it is not)
> >
> >b) some kind of assurance of safety (it is not)
> >
> >With regard to Ada testing, a lot depends on what you are trying
> >to achieve. Certainly you should be able to find coverage tools
> >on the actual target you are running on,and there are also a
> >number of test generation tools that are applicable to many
> >different target environments.
> >
> >Robert Dewar
> >Ada Core Technologies
> >
> >
> >--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> >---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> 
> 
> 
>