On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>You missed two crucial issues:
>1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management requires audits to 
>pass.  IT does not control auditors (quite the reverse in fact).  And we lowly 
>programmers have no input to auditors at all.
>2. There is no existing independent verification tool for a company to use on 
>ABO's output.  And if someone creates one, it has to be from a company OTHER 
>than IBM so that IBM's ABO results are independently verifiable.
>"Smart" testing is of course a valid and desirable goal, but lacking an 
>existing *independent* verification tool there is no option but full 
>regression testing.  Manual verification is not reasonable or cost effective, 
>especially for very large programs and program suites.
>And again, I am not trashing ABO, which on its face is an amazing tool BUT it 
>changes object code.  Lacking independent automated verification, in any sane 
>definition of a program life cycle system that is a change that requires full 
>regression testing.
Do the above apply likewise to moving to a different processor model, or even to
a microcode upgrade?

-- gil

For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to