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=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_LOCAL_HEX, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS autolearn=no 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: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking werenotturned off? Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:48:40 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4d81491c$0$43833$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 1USNo4xB7BXOCFJ8EgqasQoJ4NOT2QOTjjQy5XpVUfeo+dc6M9 Cancel-Lock: sha1:TTqC1PL6Ft07E/7EFI5OnAvxgHE= User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (Win32) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18290 Date: 2011-03-17T19:48:40+01:00 List-Id: robin wrote: > The error was in assuming that there was no possibility of a > programming error, and therefore it must be hardware error. > This error was made in the Ariadne 4. If the sensor had read back a value that large for real, the Ariane 4 would have been disintegrated long before. I'd call that "hardware failure". Vinzent. -- A C program is like a fast dance on a newly waxed dance floor by people carrying razors. -- Waldi Ravens