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

From: Mike Ellims < >
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 21:01:48 +0100


> With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?
 

The question is why?

I know this issue is documented in at least one book.

Did any of the programmers/coder on this even know about previous examples?    

From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Sent: 04 May 2015 13:55
To: M.Pont_at_xxxxxx
Cc: The System Safety List
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]  

Why wait until testing? With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?  

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On May 4, 2015, at 08:49, Michael J. Pont <M.Pont_at_xxxxxx

Matthew:  

β€œOn 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?”  

OK – but maybe next time we can ask them to do this testing before the aircraft goes into service …  

Michael.  

Michael J. Pont

SafeTTy Systems Ltd.



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com




_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Mon May 04 2015 - 22:02:11 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:07 CEST