From: "Jack Flynn" <flynnja@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: C.A.R. Hoare on liability
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:36:56 GMT
Date: 2002-06-22T13:36:56+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3%Q8.48932$LC3.3739265@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5ee5b646.0206220514.55f8cf9a@posting.google.com
"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0206220514.55f8cf9a@posting.google.com...
>
> My understanding of the Ariane case is that this check was casually put
in,
> in other words it was put in WITHOUT any analysis that said this check was
> needed. Deployed code should not have such checks.
>
In the Ariane IV case, analysis was done to convince themselves that
they did not have a "generic software fault". The checks were to trap
faulty hardware and get a failed channel offline to prevent actuator force
fights
or other interference with the unfailed channel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-22 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-17 16:09 C.A.R. Hoare on liability Wes Groleau
2002-06-19 16:14 ` Mike Silva
2002-06-19 16:57 ` Darren New
2002-06-19 18:03 ` Larry Kilgallen
2002-06-19 17:54 ` Wes Groleau
2002-06-20 13:05 ` Marin David Condic
2002-06-21 14:31 ` Wes Groleau
2002-06-21 16:47 ` Marin David Condic
2002-06-21 11:55 ` Robert Dewar
2002-06-21 20:45 ` Robert I. Eachus
2002-06-22 13:14 ` Robert Dewar
2002-06-22 13:36 ` Jack Flynn [this message]
2002-06-22 16:47 ` Mark Biggar
2002-06-23 15:47 ` Robert I. Eachus
2002-06-22 2:55 ` SteveD
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox