Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!guy
From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: What I miss in micro-processors (fairly long)
Message-ID: <2775@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 03:42:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2775
Posted: Tue Sep 10 03:42:19 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 06:30:09 EDT
References: <796@kuling.UUCP> <2580002@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 15

>  Re: range checks. 
> ... 
> I agree with you to a point. For low-risk code leave them out, But for my 
> money I would prefer to see the code in for systems like nuclear plants,
> MX missiles etc..

I'm not sure I'd feel very comfortable knowing that if the code controlling
a nuclear power plant or an MX got a subscript error, it would dutifully
print a traceback on the console terminal...

I'd rather have that code verified not to ever generate subscript errors
(except as the result of hardware errors, but if your hardware is that
flakey, subscript errors are probably the least of your worries).

	Guy Harris