Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!gitpyr!is813cs
From: is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <7190@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 30 Jan 89 22:54:45 GMT
References: <286@proton.UUCP> <3621@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: is813cs@pyr.UUCP (Cris Simpson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: VA Rehab R&D | Ga Inst of Technology
Lines: 24

> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) 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?
>
>Please tell us what hospitals buy your product so we may stay away from them.


I would be willing to bet that Sun would prefer that you not use their
compiler.  The way  medical malpractice  suits work, they clean out
everybody along the way until they get to some real money.  An apparent
compiler bug could be very expensive.

FYI: Motorola says that  they do not recommend their components for
life support applications.  They say that using their components means
you have agreed to assume all risk and indemnify them against damages.
None of which would last a second in court.


And so, the specter of STRICT LIABILITY arose from the swamp, and the 
engineers and managers were sore afraid.

cris