Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ames!ultra!!ted@uunet.uu.net (Ted Schroeder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS)
Message-ID: <4730@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 02:21:04 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Lines: 29
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 143, Message 8 of 8


john@jetson.upma.md.us (John Owens) writes:

>[If you haven't already seen this, here's the bug in the CCS7 software.]

>This is the bug that cause the AT&T breakdown
>the other day (no, it wasn't an MCI virus):

>In the switching software (written in C), there was a long
>"do . . . while" construct, which contained
>   a "switch" statement, which contained
>      an "if" clause, which contained a
>         "break," which was intended for
>      the "if" clause, but instead broke from
>   the "switch" statement.

>["break" never breaks an "if", only "switch"es, "do"s, and "while"s.]

If this is the real bug did anyone else notice that lint would have
caught it?  I guess we know what AT&T thinks about "proving programs
correct" if they don't even lint their code, eh?

      Ted Schroeder                   ted@Ultra.com
      Ultra Network Technologies      ...!ames!ultra!ted
      101 Daggett Drive           
      San Jose, CA 95134          
      408-922-0100

Disclaimer:  I don't even believe what I say, why should my company?