3 ms·
I agree development of the avionics is different from the RTOS. But what makes you say that the avionics algorithms aren't DO-178B? That is something the custom
by planteen 10y ago
I agree development of the avionics is different from the RTOS. But what makes you say that the avionics algorithms aren't DO-178B? That is something the customer (gov't) would specify to the contractor. I didn't ever work on the JSF avionics code to know the development process. Did you? A lack of press releases about it does not mean it is not DO-178B compliant.
Reading the JSF coding standard, it sounds like all libraries must be DO-178B:
"All libraries used must be DO-178B level A certifiable or written in house and
developed using the same software development processes required for all other
safety-critical software. This includes both the run-time library functions as well as
the C/C++ standard library functions. [10,11] Note that we expect certifiable versions
of the C++ standard libraries to be available at some point in the future. These
certifiable libraries would be allowed under this rule. "
- unboxed_type 10y agoGood point. As far as I know there are no DO-178B complient C++ libraries available yet (STL, for example). If you know any please point out. My reasoning is as follows: While civil avionics must comply with regulatory safety standards, military avionics is not. So economically speaking there is a little sense for them to do such costly certification just to ensure quality.