[SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]

[Matthew Squair]

Hi Martyn,

I see the greatest value of carrying out a test of this sort is in finding
out things you never anticipated. Not as a substitute for static analysis,
code inspections or basic good practice.

Now Boeing knows something about both the product software and the efficacy
of their processes. Will they address the 'quality escape', or just fix the
immediate problem? That I don't know.

Matthew Squair

MIEAust, CPEng
Mob: +61 488770655
Email; Mattsquair at gmail.com
Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

On 5 May 2015, at 12:06 am, Martyn Thomas <martyn at thomas-associates.co.uk>
wrote:

Was this 8 months of simulation, to find an overflow error that static
analysis could find in seconds?

It may even be true that the developers assumed correctly that noone
would fly for 8 months without powering off the generators - in which
case their fault may have just been not documenting that assumption as a
requirement.

Martyn

On 04/05/2015 13:31, Matthew Squair wrote:

On the other hand I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that

the Boeing 'bug' was found by running a long duration simulation, not

by an airliner falling out of the sky. So perhaps thanks is due to the

Boeing safety or software engineer(s) who insisted on a long run

endurance test and who might have actually learned something from history?




_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150505/3deac313/attachment.html>