[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

Because read this

Ramine

12/31/2015 7:56:00 PM

Hello,


You must not to believe this Richard Heathfield of comp.programming
that defend blindly C and C++ with some stupid arguments.

Because read this, it`s the same that i was saying in my previous post:


``If youâ??re performing formal verification before testing, you may argue
that run-time checks are a waste of testing time. After all, they are
never going to fail, right? Well, even with full formal verification,
errors might occur. The compiler you are using might be generating the
wrong code; or the linker might introduce an error; or the hardware
itself may be faulty. Even formal verification systems have been known
to contain errors. When we test formally verified software, any test
failure is symptomatic of a fault in the development process, tool
chain, or hardware. If we test throughly and find no errors, this gives
us confidence that the process and tool chain are sound. Testing with
run-time checks enabled (as well as without, if we intend to ship
without run-time checks) and experiencing no run-time check failures
adds to that confidence.``


Read all here please to understand me more:

http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they...


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.



1 Answer

Richard Heathfield

12/31/2015 8:28:00 PM

0

On 31/12/15 19:55, Ramine wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> You must not to believe this Richard Heathfield of comp.programming
> that defend blindly C and C++ with some stupid arguments.

Where "stupid arguments" == "arguments that Ramine doesn't agree with".

> Because read this,

Please look up "because". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

> it`s the same that i was saying in my previous post:
>
>
> ``If youâ??re performing formal verification before testing, you may argue
> that run-time checks are a waste of testing time. After all, they are
> never going to fail, right? Well, even with full formal verification,
> errors might occur. The compiler you are using might be generating the
> wrong code; or the linker might introduce an error; or the hardware
> itself may be faulty. Even formal verification systems have been known
> to contain errors. When we test formally verified software, any test
> failure is symptomatic of a fault in the development process, tool
> chain, or hardware. If we test throughly and find no errors, this gives
> us confidence that the process and tool chain are sound. Testing with
> run-time checks enabled (as well as without, if we intend to ship
> without run-time checks) and experiencing no run-time check failures
> adds to that confidence.``

You seem to be saying here that it can be a good idea to use run-time
checks during testing. I have no quarrel with that. My quarrel is with
your claim that *because* C and C++ perform unsigned integer arithmetic
modulo 2^(CHAR_BIT * sizeof(unsigned_type)) they are THEREFORE
unsuitable for realtime safety-critical systems programming. That's a
stupid argument, because there's no "why" in it, no reason that links
the cause with the effect. It's like saying "rabbits are dangerous
because they have tails" - there is no connection between the two halves
of the argument.

>
>
> Read all here please to understand me more:

If you want to be understood, make yourself clearer. Posting Web links
is never going to achieve that.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within