Re: [avr-gcc-list] Most reliable version of avr-gcc?

[David Carr]

Bob,

You've got a neat website there.  I'll have to spend some time looking at it.

Peter hit the nail on the head.  Quite often latest version != most
reliable version.  I don't have a specific standard in mind, but I'm
working on an ECU application where reliability is important to me.

Thanks for the help so far,
-DC

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Carr <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> By reliability, I mean least probability of undetected errors in machine
>> code generation.  IE: The machine code conforms to the source code.
>
>
> "How to verify your compiler for use in IEC 61508 safety-critical
> applications; A step-by-step guide to what's necessary to satisfy the
> IEC61508 safety-critical requirements for compiler verification."
>
> http://www.embedded.com/design/opensource/202800510
>
> You have to disassemble the HEX file to be sure what you are putting in
> the
> device,
> is really what you wanted.  I have personally been bitten by an assembler
> that made
> a good listing and bad HEX file.  That was fun to debug.  As was the CPU
> (Non-AVR)
> that had a bad XOR instruction, but only on certain bit patterns.  This
> why
> the
> new "White Goods" standards is harder to pass self-test, than some the
> things that
> really could kill you.  Gets even more fun when the standard says the
> device
> must
> be in operational mode in under one second...
>
> Is there some standard you are aiming for like FDA or DO178D?
>
> See if there is anything that might answer your question at my site:
> http://www.softwaresafety.net/
>
> --
> http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/
> http://www.softwaresafety.net/
> http://www.designer-iii.com/
> http://www.unusualresearch.com/
> _______________________________________________
> AVR-GCC-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
>