Subj : Re: Not debugging?
To   : comp.programming,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.lisp
From : Phlip
Date : Sun Aug 28 2005 01:18 am

Greg Menke wrote:

>> Then define "legacy" as "requires debugging".
>
> Bizarre.

Then define "foo" as "frequent punitive open-ended debugging causing 
occassional schedule risk". Some teams use "legacy" as a casual shorthand 
way to say "foo". Please substitute my definition for "foo" wherever I wrote 
"legacy", so we can address the actual points raised.

> Nope- went through breadboard designs of the hardware using inputs &
> outputs first from emulation hardware and eventually from the real
> hardware.  The breadboard designs are used to work up hardware and
> software designs and implementations, feeding back changes & bugfixes,
> etc into the evolving specs.  Ideally, the working software meets the
> working hardware later on in the project.

Sorry to interrupt; why is that "ideal"? Does the software match up even 
later sometimes?

> Low fidelity emulation is
> pretty handy for easier classes of bugs early on; mismatched or unpacked
> structs, endian stuff, etc..  But race conditions and pathological i/o
> states (the harder problems) often depend on the real hardware in the
> real operating environment (maybe interrupt timing changes because
> capacitors & clocks drift when the system goes below freezing, for
> example).

As you stated before, in that space you often must research the nature of 
faults, and that research will occupy significant development time.

>> Ideally, I would configure one button on my editor to run all tests 
>> against
>> the emulator, then run all possible tests against the hardware. If the 
>> code
>> fails in the hardware I would trivially attempt to upgrade the emulator 
>> to
>> match the fault, so the code also fails with the emulator. But this is
>> speculation, and of course it won't prevent the need to debug against the
>> hardware.
>
> Neat.  Who's going to pay for the emulator (build it & prove that it
> matches the hardware- and keep it matching) when we also have to do the
> real system?

In my experience, many teams are too busy doing "foo" because they did not 
carefully plan a development environment that reduces the odds of "foo". I 
suspect your team does have a good development environment, so we may be 
talking past each other now.

But that's no reason to stop!

-- 
  Phlip
  http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand  <-- NOT a blog!!!

.