[SystemSafety] A small taste of what we're up against

[Steve Tockey]

Agreed, but being able to do some meaningful semantic analysis of the code is only part of the struggle. The broader code semantic has to be verified against some external description of necessary system behavioral semantics.

Trying to precisely, concisely, and accurately capture necessary system behavioral semantics in any natural language is a lost cause.

Lack of knowledge and use of system behavioral semantics specification languages is a much bigger problem, IMHO.


— steve 



发自我的 iPad

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:00 AM, Martyn Thomas <martyn at thomas-associates.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Yes, people make mistakes and inspections and testing find too few of
> them. That's why you need languages with semantics for which tools can
> be written that detect many such mistakes.
> 
> For example, if your tools can tell you "this program can generate a
> value for that array index that will be out of bounds", you have the
> opportunity to eliminate the error before it kills someone.
> 
> Martyn
> 
> 
>> On 24/10/2018 12:11, Derek M Jones wrote:
>> I practice most developers don't read the language standard
>> and most coding mistakes are unrelated to developer knowledge
>> of language semantics, e.g., they are oversights, off
>> by one errors or cut-and-paste slip-ups.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE