Friday 31 May 2013
By Mitch on Friday 31 May 2013, 15:06 - Standards
We saw in the first article of this series, what is a SOUP and what is not a SOUP, according to IEC 62304.
Then we continued in the second article by having a look at OS's and drivers.
Let's now see how to deal with runtimes.
Continue reading...
Friday 24 May 2013
By Mitch on Friday 24 May 2013, 14:03 - Standards
We've seen in last article, what is a SOUP and what is not a SOUP, according to IEC 62304.
We've also seen that a lot of 3rd party software are SOUPs, to begin with OS, drivers, runtimes, Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers and frameworks.
How to deal with those to be compliant with IEC 62304?
Continue reading...
Monday 21 January 2013
By Mitch on Monday 21 January 2013, 15:34 - Standards
In the last two posts, we've seen what a software unit is, and when to do software detailed design, according to IEC 62304 and FDA Guidances.
Continue reading...
Friday 11 January 2013
By Mitch on Friday 11 January 2013, 14:08 - Standards
IEC 62304 requires to split architecture of class C (mission critical) software into software items and software units. Software units are software items that can't be split into sub-items, according to the standard. Okay. But how to decide that an item can't be split into sub-items, and is a unit?
Continue reading...
Friday 28 September 2012
By Mitch on Friday 28 September 2012, 12:10 - Misc
In two previous articles, I talked about the differences of bugs, software failures, and risks.
I left the discussion unfinished about the probability of occurence of a software failure or a defect.
I think that assessing the probability of occurence of a software failure is a hot subject. I've already seen many contradictory comments on this subject. It's also a hot subject for software manufacturers that are not well used to risk assessment.
Continue reading...
Friday 14 September 2012
By Mitch on Friday 14 September 2012, 12:06 - Misc
In my previous post about Bugs, Software Risks and Software Failures, I explained the concepts of bugs, defects or anomalies, and the concept of software failure.
Let's continue now with Risks.
Continue reading...
Friday 7 September 2012
By Mitch on Friday 7 September 2012, 18:10 - Misc
A bug can lead to a software failure.
Having bugs is a risk.
Having a software failure is a risk.
A software failure is not necessarily a bug!
Do you follow me?
If not, let me give you some more explanations.
Continue reading...