Re: FreeRTOS / SafeRTOS in a Medical Device

In message <pwsXk.93760$E41.27366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, FreeRTOS.org <noemail@xxxxxxxxx> writes

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:492DECF0.DA8B5994@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
<cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx> writes
"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:

Because we would sue you and your childeren would go unfed ;o)
I really think we are talking at cross purposes though, so maybe
not.

Oh? You would consider publishing something like:

In version 123.456, lines 789 thru 792:

delete "in blah blah blah"
and substitute "in blah gubris"
and add "otherwise frabble"
to meet standard provision 6.3.4.5.

a copyright violation? I suspect you would have trouble finding
a legal firm to represent you.

Firstly, this was not supposed to be a serious comment, and second
I still don't understand where you are coming from.

Because, as far as I am concerned, a secret method of validating
something is totally worthless.

There is absolutely nothing secret about a process that is published in an
international standard and has many sections on exactly the techniques and
measures you have to follow!

BTW both the main test suites are not "secret" it is just that you can't publish openly the *results* of the tests for the normal commercial reasons.

However, if I included a set of
source code tests, and their results, so that anyone could
duplicate them,

This is exactly what is done, its just that you have to pay to get them, but
we are not talking about a mass market product its very specialist.

The tests are independently generated, independently reviewed, independently
audited, and sometimes have to be signed of by government accredited bodies.
Lots of people see them. Anybody can buy them.

Exactly they are completely open. You do have to pay for them and adhere to the license (just like you do with FOSS)

However, source code tests by themselves are meaningless unless you have the
rest of the lifecycle evidence so you know what you are testing for/against.
You could test your code for twenty years and still fail an audit within
30seconds when the first question is asked "please demonstrate your
requirements tracing methods".

Which is why it is difficult to do validation for a GCC compiler compared to a compiler from say Byte craft where they have all the documentation from day 1 and control the process. Also all the developers are known


and stated exactly what I considered those tests
proved,
at least some would check that out.

Believe me - they have been checked out by plenty of people.

Lots. All with relevant qualifications and experience. The provenance of Plum-Hall and Perennial can not be questioned.

The problem is, as usual, the FOSS people have set up a new model for working and are compiling when the rest of us won't play. However they won't play with the model the real world uses.

With respect - I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about how
these things work. When I get on an aeroplane I have confidence that the
landing gear will work because I know the process the developer has had to
go through to get them passed as fit to fly on that aircraft. I don't need
to personally see the stress analysis that was performed to have that
confidence. However, if I was to take that landing gear and integrate it
onto another plane then I would need the entire lifecycle and design data so
I could ensure the component was suitable for the new integration platform.
I would not expect that data to be publically available though.

Good example.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C++ to VB conversion and preprocessor definition
    ... The #define preprocessor definition tells the compiler to effectively ... perform a search and replace on the sourcecode as it is compiling, replacing ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: MODULEand USE versus Argument Passing
    ... I am quite aware of special array type cases, which show some compiler ... for three interfaces (Module, Subroutine contained in module, and external ... -| COMMON blah blah I,J, blah blah ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: my first class - getting an error
    ... I'm not sure what the problem you're having interpreting the error is, but I _suspect_ you are being led astray by the "...and no extension method blah blah blah" part. ... In some cases, in a well-intentioned effort to provide you with additional guidance, the compiler introduces some concept that you may not even be aware of, completely confusing the issue. ... But the "Calculus" method exists in the "summing" class, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • broken samples....
    ... mostly for embarrasing reasons like: ... Now that your compiler got better it ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Declaring constants within the scope of a class
    ... // blah blah blah ... integral type is not allowed in C++, but the compiler is giving a wrong ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)