"... In PAGE 6: ... Mov- ing away from the VISA system, the explicit 31t should be noted that the programmer in this case was not any more adept at functional programming than imperative programming. Table2 displays the programming effort in terms of lines of code that the user is responsible for writing, and approximate time it took to code and debug each of the programs. For brevity, we will represent the three programming styles in our tables and figures as follows: SISAL represents Sisal and VISA; C+VISA represents explicit parallel C and VISA; and C+MP represents explicit parallel C with message passing.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ...able 2-3 Hazard Causes and Controls - Examples .........................................................16 Table3 -1 NASA Software Lifecycle - Reviews and Documents.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-1 NASA Software Lifecycle - Reviews and Documents......................................20 Table3 -2 MIL-STD-882C Software Hazard Criticality Matrix.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-2 MIL-STD-882C Software Hazard Criticality Matrix.......................................28 Table3 -3 Software Sub-system categories.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-3 Software Sub-system categories........................................................................29 Table3 -4 Required Software Safety Effort .... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-4 Required Software Safety Effort .......................................................................30 Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-5 Software Requirements Phase...........................................................................33 Table3 -6 Software Architectural Design Phase.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-6 Software Architectural Design Phase................................................................34 Table3 -7 Software Detailed Design Phase .... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-7 Software Detailed Design Phase .......................................................................34 Table3 -8 Software Implementation Phase.... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-8 Software Implementation Phase........................................................................35 Table3 -9 Software Testing Phase .... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-9 Software Testing Phase .....................................................................................35 Table3 -10 Dynamic Testing .... In PAGE 8: ...able 3-10 Dynamic Testing .............................................................................................36 Table3 -11 Software Module Testing .... In PAGE 27: ...19 3.1 Software Development Lifecycle Approach Table3 -1 NASA Software Lifecycle - Reviews and Documents (page 20)shows the typical NASA software waterfall design lifecycle phases and lists the reviews and deliverable project documents required at each lifecycle phase. Each of these reviews and project documents should contain appropriate references and reports on software safety.... In PAGE 28: ...20 Table3 -1 NASA Software Lifecycle - Reviews and Documents LIFECYCLE PHASES MILESTONE REVIEWS SOFTWARE SAFETY TASKS DOCUMENTS Software Concept and Initiation (Project System and Subsystem Requirements and Design Development) SCR - Software Concept Review Software Management Plan Review Phase-0 Safety Review Scoping Safety Effort 2.1.... In PAGE 31: ... The system development phases are separated by system design reviews. Each system design review is conducted approximately in parallel with a corresponding system safety review as shown in Table3 -1 NASA Software Lifecycle - Reviews and Documents on page 20. The software development effort may or may not be synchronized with the system development effort.... In PAGE 35: ... 3.3 Scoping of Software Subsystem Safety Effort The level of required software safety effort for a system (shown in Table3 -3) is determined by its System Category, derived from Table 2-2 Hazard Prioritization - System Risk Index (Page 8), and the hazard severity level from Section 2.... In PAGE 36: ...28 Table3 -2 MIL-STD-882C Software Hazard Criticality Matrix HAZARD CATEGORY CONTROL CATEGORY CATASTRO- PHIC CRITICAL MODERATE NEGLIGIBLE / MARGINAL I1135 II 1 2 4 5 III 2 3 5 5 III 3 4 5 5 Software Hazard Risk Index Suggested Criteria 1 High Risk - significant analysis and testing resources 2 Medium risk - requirements and design analysis and in-depth testing required 3-4 Moderate risk - high level analysis and testing acceptable with management approval 5 Low Risk - Acceptable 3.3.... In PAGE 37: ...29 Table3 -3 Software Sub-system categories System Category Descriptions I Partial or total autonomous control of safety critical functions by software. (System Risk Index 2) Complex system with multiple subsystems, interacting parallel processors, or multiple interfaces.... In PAGE 39: ... Ultimately, the range of selected techniques must be negotiated and approved by project management, software development, software quality assurance, and software systems safety. Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase through Table 3-11 Software Module Testing are modifications of tables that appear from an early International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) draft standard IEC 1508, quot;Software For Computers In The Application Of Industrial Safety-Related Systems quot; [5]. This document is currently under review by national and international representatives on the IEC to determine its acceptability as an international standard on software safety for products which contain Programmable Electronic Systems (PESs).... In PAGE 39: ... These tables provide guidance on the types of assurance activities which may be performed during the lifecycle phases of safety-critical software development. For this guidebook, the Required Software Safety Efforts values displayed in Table3 -4 Required Software Safety Effort (page 30), will determine which development activities are required for each level of effort. Each of the following tables lists techniques and recommendations for use based on safety effort level for a specific software development phase or phases.... In PAGE 40: ... The final list of techniques to be used on any project should be developed jointly by negotiations between project management and safety assurance. All the following tables, Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase through Table 3-11 Software Module Testing , list software development, safety and assurance activities which should be implemented in the stated phases of development. Life Cycle Phase Tasks and Priorities How To: Development Tasks How To: Analysis Tasks Concept Initiation Table 3-5 Software Requirements Phase Section 4.... In PAGE 40: ... All the following tables, Table 3-5 Software Requirements Phase through Table 3-11 Software Module Testing , list software development, safety and assurance activities which should be implemented in the stated phases of development. Life Cycle Phase Tasks and Priorities How To: Development Tasks How To: Analysis Tasks Concept Initiation Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase Section 4.1 Section 5.... In PAGE 40: ...1 Section 5.1 Software Requirements Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase Section 4.2 Section 5.... In PAGE 40: ...2 Section 5.1 Software Architectural Design Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase Section 4.3 Section 5.... In PAGE 40: ...3 Section 5.1 Software Detailed Design Table3 -7 Software Detailed Design Phase Section 4.4 Section 5.... In PAGE 40: ...4 Section 5.3 Software Implementation Table3 -8 Software Implementation Phase Section 4.5 Section 5.... In PAGE 40: ...5 Section 5.1 Software Test Table3 -9 Software Testing Phase Table 3-10 Dynamic Testing Table 3-11 Software Module Testing Section 4.6... In PAGE 40: ...5 Section 5.1 Software Test Table 3-9 Software Testing Phase Table3 -10 Dynamic Testing Table 3-11 Software Module Testing Section 4.6... In PAGE 40: ...5 Section 5.1 Software Test Table 3-9 Software Testing Phase Table 3-10 Dynamic Testing Table3 -11 Software Module Testing Section 4.6... In PAGE 41: ...33 Table3 -5 Software Requirements Phase TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL 2.1 Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) MMM 5.... In PAGE 42: ...34 Table3 -6 Software Architectural Design Phase TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL 5.2.... In PAGE 42: ....2.4.2 Independence Analysis HR M M Table3 -7 Software Detailed Design Phase TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL 5.3.... In PAGE 43: ...35 Table3 -8 Software Implementation Phase TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL 5.4.... In PAGE 43: ...4.9 Formal Methods NR HR HR Table3 -9 Software Testing Phase TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL Testing Defensive Programming NR HR M Boundary Value Tests R HR M Error Guessing NR NR R Test Coverage Analysis R HR M Functional Testing M M M Fagan Formal Inspections (Test Plans) HR HR M Reliability Modeling NR HR HR Checklists of Tests R HR... In PAGE 44: ...36 Table3 -10 Dynamic Testing TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL Typical sets of sensor inputs HR M M Test specific functions HR M M Volumetric and statistical tests R HR HR Test extreme values of inputs R M M Test all modes of each sensor R M M Path testing R M M Every statement executed once HR M M Every branch tested at least once HR M M Every predicate term tested R HR M Every loop executed 0, 1, many times R M M Every path executed R HR M Every assignment to memory tested NR HR HR Every reference to memory tested NR HR HR All mappings from inputs checked NR HR HR All timing constraints verified R M M Test worst case interrupt sequences R R... In PAGE 45: ...37 Test significant chains of interrupts R R NR Test Positioning of data in I/O space HR M M Check accuracy of arithmetic NR HR M All modules executed at least once M M M All invocations of modules tested HR M M Table3 -11 Software Module Testing TECHNIQUE SAFETY EFFORT LEVEL MIN MOD FULL Simulation (Test Environment) R HR M Load Testing (Stress Testing) HR M M Boundary Value Tests R HR M Test Coverage Analysis R HR M Functional Testing M M M Performance Monitoring R HR M Formal Progress Reviews R M M Reliability Modeling NR HR HR Checklists of Tests R HR... ..."

"... In PAGE 29: ...27 Search Effort (Optimal vs. Greedy) 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Inputs Nodes Created AO* H2 Nodes AO* H3 Nodes Greedy H2 Nodes Greedy H3 Nodes Figure 4: Optimal Search Effort Results on Moderately Large Problems Because computing times are dependent on hardware and programming characteristics, we only provide selected results in Table7 . Note that our implementation was not the most optimized as it uses extensive recursion, sequential search for partitioning the rule set and cases, and uncompressed storage of the rule and data set partitions in each OR node.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... Table4 presents in a format compatible with Figure 2 data on programmer productivity in very successful projects. Where present, overall statistics are the simple average of the corresponding statistics for MSS and CSS entries, weighted by their respective sample sizes.... In PAGE 10: ...a difference between the attributes of an MSS development group and a CSS development group. Two further tests of dii~ferencesbetween the groups are presented in Table4 and Table 5. Table 4 presents for those few projects for which data was available evidence of programmer productivity differences between MSS and CSS development groups.... In PAGE 10: ... Two further tests of dii~ferencesbetween the groups are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. Table4 presents for those few projects for which data was available evidence of programmer productivity differences between MSS and CSS development groups. Not only is programmer productivity for both MSS and CSS groups higher than estimated by Aaron, but the nonproportionality in productivity as a function of project duration is more pronounced.... In PAGE 10: ... The differences in programmer cost might be explained by higher salaries and more machine time requirements of CSS programmers compared to MSS programers. The differences in fixed cost might be explained by a high fixed managerial requirement to successfully design and implement an MSS, Of course, it cannot be inferred from Table4 that MSS programmers are... ..."

"... In PAGE 13: ... The number of systems calls used in each approach is, in some sense, analogous to the number of code lines implementing each ap- proach. Table1 shows the total number of system calls required for each approach. Table 1 also distinguishes between the number of system calls required to establish com- munication between the Web client and the middleware, and the number of calls required to submit a query and get back the results.... ..."

"... In PAGE 13: ... The number of systems calls used in each approach is, in some sense, analogous to the number of code lines implementing each ap- proach. Table1 shows the total number of system calls required for each approach. Table 1 also distinguishes between the number of system calls required to establish com- munication between the Web client and the middleware, and the number of calls required to submit a query and get back the results.... ..."