Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!lll-winken!tekbspa!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <871@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jan 89 19:13:57 GMT
References: <286@proton.UUCP> <1034@vsi.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1034@vsi.COM>, friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
> In article <286@proton.UUCP>, nusbaum@meson.uucp (R. James Nusbaum) writes:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of gcc (a relatively new
> > compiler as compilers go) vs. using Sun's C compiler in a medical
> > software project where software failure could cause loss of life?
> 
> This might depend on who the survivors would prefer to sue: FSF or Sun...
> 
> Stephen J. Friedl        3B2-kind-of-guy            friedl@vsi.com

This is not a trivial concern.  I know of a certain company whose
8-bit processor Pascal libraries had an error in one of the math
functions.  A major chemical company was writing software using it
and another vendor's compiler for process control.  If they had 
put the first company's executable to work on a real plant, it 
might well have lead to explosion...

I can well picture a jury's reaction to finding out that a software
vendor used "free" software, vs. a commercial product.  (Even if
the free product wasn't at fault).  I suspect the tendency would be
to view such a company as flakey, amateurish, or ridiculously
cheap.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer
{pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!