On 14/02/2014 13:00, "Sebastien Lorquet" <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
>Hello > >I'm just saying that freedom is not a direct measure of quality, which is >obvious but may have been a bit overlooked in the original post. Hmm, the original question mentioned open source not freedom and I tried to say that with open source you can (in theory at least) have a look at the quality and decide for yourself where as with closed source you can't. > >About critical software, and by that I mean "someone could die because of >bad >code" , you will need certified software, from the application you're >writing to >the compiler that produces the final binary code. Right and with closed source you are at the mercy of your tool provider in two ways: 1) if they are willing to certify their software and 2) if their certification is worth anything, which is very hard to judge. > >GPL software explicitly states that it does not provide any warranty of >fitness >for any purpose etc etc, which, in critical software, translates to "be >happy if >things happen to work, but you cant blame us if it doesnt". And this is >probably >not acceptable as-is for, say, SpaceX. In such critical case, the >compiler HAS >TO work in a verifiable manner. That's a different spin that I would put on this. GPL just says that they are not to be held responsible. Most proprietary tool providers have similar texts in their licenses. So no difference. Googling for certified C-compilers is very educational, it boils down to the fact that you need to do your own assessment and bear the responsibility. > >Test suites are only a part of the checks. Formal verification is another >one. Any formally verified C compilers out there? Or for other languages? Prices? Anyone using them? > >The upper case sections can be found here at paragraphs 15 and 16 > >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Thanks. > >(I agree that rewrites in commercial software can be rare, and this proves >further that both worlds are similar in some ways :) ) :) >(and Raphael Neider itself once told me that the PIC ports should be >rewritten!) Well, he maybe right, but he may also be wrong! Many people use that as an escape clause when in reality refactoring and re-working the code is often a better (or only!) option. cheers Kusti This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. We will not be liable for direct, indirect, special or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on or as of transmission of this e-mail in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android apps run on BlackBerry 10 Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps. Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more. Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
