Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:05:38 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Boris Kochergin <spawk@acm.poly.edu> Cc: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why panic(9) ? Message-ID: <444o9fhz9p.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <4D2CC06A.8080408@acm.poly.edu> (Boris Kochergin's message of "Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:41:14 -0500") References: <AANLkTi=OQbS-0jJx0YwZhM7xDWPLOkaYYZAYfESUEvvM@mail.gmail.com> <4D2CC06A.8080408@acm.poly.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Replies redirected.] Boris Kochergin <spawk@acm.poly.edu> writes: > All modern operating systems? Maybe some niche ones, like the ones > that run on Mars rovers, have made progress towards formal > verification and are believed not to crash given correctly-functioning > hardware. The Mars rovers run on VxWorks. Which is a system I like, but it isn't anything like formally verifiable. And it certainly does the equivalent of FreeBSD panic() under some circumstances.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?444o9fhz9p.fsf>