From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical devices
Date: 1997/05/03
Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.862714122@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3.0.32.19970503111453.007174bc@mail.4dcomm.com
Robert Leif says
<<I have very strong reservations about reviewing object code. Although
configuration management tools could be configured to prevent changes in
the object code, I believe that there would be a very strong temptation for
some of the programmers to hand optimize the object code.>>
How can you possibly avoid reviewing object code for safety critical
programs? Certainly I am unaware of any acceptable methodology that
can be used today that avoids reviewing object code. I agree that we
need to develop such techn9ologies, but we are not there yet.
I think the concern about optimizing object code is misplaced. The typical
procedures followed for reviewing object code do not begin to allow for
this kind of optimization, and I have never seen that be a problem. Indeed
usually for safety critical code, a common demand is that the compiler
NOT do any optimization (of course that is not a very well defined requirement)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-05-03 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-05-03 0:00 Not intended for use in medical devices Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
1997-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1997-05-04 0:00 Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
1997-05-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku
1997-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-05-06 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku
1997-05-12 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1997-05-06 0:00 ` Michael F Brenner
1997-05-06 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku
1997-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-05-08 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1997-05-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-05-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox