FreeRTOS / SafeRTOS in a Medical Device

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:493070A8.1107BBF2@yahoo.com...
> Chris H wrote:
>> FreeRTOS.org <noemail@given.com> writes
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I see no sign of testing code and methods in the ISO C standard.
> So, if you can't publish that code, or even the results of the
> tests, I see no value whatsoever in the tests.  As I said before,
> it is obvious, according to the XYZ tests, that Microsoft software
> is uniformly correct and bug free.  I have no need to expose the
> guts of the XYZ tests, nor the actual results, according to you,
> yet I should be taken at my word.  Do you detect anything imbecelic
> in that statement?


Just to be clear - this thread was about validating components such as an 
RTOS for safety work.  *Nothing* I have written in this thread is related to 
language compliance testing for compilers.

If you want to continue the tit for tat with Chris about compilers please go 
back to the original thread, rename the subject of your posts, or start a 
new thread.

-- 
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org Designed for Microcontrollers
17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T&#4294967295;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.

In message <49306EE8.86569BD9@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer 
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>>>"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
>>>> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> 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.
>>
>> What "secret method"?
>
>Oh?  Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such
>test suites is publically available and criticizable?

No but that does not make it secret. The methods certainly are NOT 
secret.

Many highly qualified and experienced people have in seen the source 
code of both the main test suites. All the commercial compiler companies 
for a start.  All of the test and validation houses have.

It is just that the source (and IP is not FOSS)



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

In message <4930A967.6E40EB2A@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer 
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>Cesar Rabak wrote:
>> CBFalconer escreveu:
>>> Chris H wrote:
>> [snipped]
>>
>>>> What "secret method"?
>>>
>>> Oh?  Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such
>>> test suites is publically available and criticizable?
>>
>> No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the
>> present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that
>> you have to pay for.
>
>And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless.

They are NOT SECRET.  ALL the main compilers and test suites houses use 
them their methods are public.

> You can get
>away with this for something like an  editor, where the failures
>are fairly evident.  But you can't just say "I have tested this"
>without some reasonable backup.

The reasonable back up is most of the worlds serious compilers vendors 
and test houses, many consultants who themselves are qualified and 
experienced (the one I use us UKAS qualified).  Most of the tool vendors 
who do static analysis use these test suites.

There is a vast amount of qualified and experienced backup  Even some 
GCC companies use these test suites. The fact that the rabble don't get 
the source code is neither here not there.



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

CBFalconer wrote:

> > No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the
> > present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that
> > you have to pay for.
>
> And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless.  You can get
> away with this for something like an  editor, where the failures
> are fairly evident.  But you can't just say "I have tested this"
> without some reasonable backup.

No one has. There are two main forms of testing. Both use back
up documentation.  Richard is referring to tests that require producing
and certifying a document that details a series of measurements
resulting from a series of prescribed procedures following a publicly
available standards document. Many standards tests use these
procedures, FCC EMI standards testing is another example.
Individuals who work on standards documents generally assign
copyright for their work so that international standards organizations
(ISO for example) and national standards organizations (ANSI and
CSA in United States and Canada) can distribute and sell the
standards to support administration and support of standards.

Compiler language testing document the execution of standardized
programs. The compiler testsuites were developed by companies
that specialize in designing tests that check the validity of tools
against
standards documents. These tests are supplied in source form to
testsuite subscribers. During compiler development these tests are
closely scrutinized for errors if they appear to have a difference of
interpretation. Language testsuites are developed by  companies
that specialize in a testing methodology and government agencies
(NIST  and the military for example). These companies provide
many support services for there products including a separate
informed opinion on the meaning of standards documents. Each
language tends to have its own testing traditions that are respected
by its users. Fortran and Ada test suites are very different from C.

Regards

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com



.

"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Cesar Rabak wrote:
>>> CBFalconer escreveu:
>>>> Chris H wrote:
>>> [snipped]
>>>
>>>>> What "secret method"?
>>>>
>>>> Oh?  Are you now suddenly claiming that the source code of such
>>>> test suites is publically available and criticizable?
>>>
>>> No Chuck, what he's trying to make you understand is that in the
>>> present World we have a lot of things that are "public" but that
>>> you have to pay for.
>>
>> And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless.  You can get
>> away with this for something like an  editor, where the failures
>> are fairly evident.  But you can't just say "I have tested this"
>> without some reasonable backup.
>
> Just to be clear - this thread was about validating components
> such as an RTOS for safety work.  *Nothing* I have written in this
> thread is related to language compliance testing for compilers.

Exactly.  And any such validation is worthless without exposing the
validation process in detail.  It has to do with components,
whether compilers, other software, hardware, or whatever.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

Chris H wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> There is a vast amount of qualified and experienced backup  Even
> some GCC companies use these test suites. The fact that the rabble
> don't get the source code is neither here not there.

But it is.  Who are you to define 'rabble' anyhow?  If that rabble
is intended to accept the fact that 'This thing was tested and
passed' they are entitled to know the details of the testing.  The
pure existence of a hiding methodology makes the whole process
highly suspicious.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

Walter Banks wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
> 
... snip ...
>
>> And my point is that such 'secret' tests are useless.  You can get
>> away with this for something like an  editor, where the failures
>> are fairly evident.  But you can't just say "I have tested this"
>> without some reasonable backup.
> 
> No one has. There are two main forms of testing. Both use back
> up documentation.  Richard is referring to tests that require
> producing and certifying a document that details a series of
> measurements resulting from a series of prescribed procedures
> following a publicly available standards document.

And Chris is referring to some nebulous tests that are not
publicized, cannot be tested and criticized, under threat of
copyright suits, and should be accepted by the docile 'rabble'.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

Chris H wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> No but that does not make it secret. The methods certainly are NOT
> secret.
> 
> Many highly qualified and experienced people have in seen the source
> code of both the main test suites. All the commercial compiler
> companies for a start.  All of the test and validation houses have.
> 
> It is just that the source (and IP is not FOSS)

And that gives those firms the right to say "We have applied our
secret tests to it, and consider it accurate".  No more.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

"FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Just to be clear - this thread was about validating components
> such as an RTOS for safety work.  *Nothing* I have written in
> this thread is related to language compliance testing for
> compilers.

It still is.  Compilers are just a typical example of a component.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
            Try the download section.

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:4931E682.EFA291@yahoo.com...
> "FreeRTOS.org" wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> Just to be clear - this thread was about validating components
>> such as an RTOS for safety work.  *Nothing* I have written in
>> this thread is related to language compliance testing for
>> compilers.
>
> It still is.  Compilers are just a typical example of a component.

[trying out my new Motzarella account - thanks for the tip]

I agree compilers are a component, but I'm still talking about something 
different.  I'm talking about testing components to international safety 
standards, as published by, ratified by, inspected by and audited by 
'official' bodies.  Chris is talking about language compliance testing, 
which is not 'governed' in the same way.   In any case a compiler can be 
100% compliant with a standard (if you can tie the standard down 100%), and 
still produce bum code, (as discussed in the ARM IDE thread) so being 
language compliant makes little difference to how you would validate the use 
of a compiler in a particular application - but PLEASE lets no go there 
again - not in this thread anyway.

-- 
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop
17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T&#4294967295;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.