| ??? 03/07/06 18:32 Read: times |
#111546 - No, I do not do as above. Responding to: ???'s previous message |
What you said is true, but you need to check the functioning of a circuit thorougly for the first time it is developed. And I am sure even if the theory behind a design is solid, you tend to reasure yourself by checking thoroughly and in different conditions.
No, I do not do as above. Yes, I test with a series of different inputs, but only once with each. specially after you have seen so many bugs in the past You don't get it do you. NONE of these bugs were caught by "testing" however extensive. An example: a program blew up ONLY if interrupt a happened precisely while the instruction at location b was being executed. How long do you need to "test" for that coincidence to happen?. The fix was to change the order of 2 instructions. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Analog Comparator on 89C2051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Analog comparator on AT89C2051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks Bert! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ADC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Analog comparator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| appnote | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one misapplication, one addition | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks to all | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Printable ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hobby project? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ok | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Active - hummmm.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Advise needed! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you seen the appnotes? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes I have | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| P3.6??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Finally working, maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Surely working! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| consistency, HUH | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not technically correct! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| so, it is "testing" which is worthless | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| True but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No, I do not do as above. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
"solid theories" vs "testing" | 01/01/70 00:00 |