add further notes about justifying claims of interoperability requirements.
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
dab82edfc8
commit
c447950855
1 file changed
+13
@@ -30,3 +30,16 @@ What we will need to do to minimise the risks, is to describe the creation of ea
|
||||
extensive commentary in terms of the specifications, including to explore different potential implementations of
|
||||
the specification, with justification of which particular implementation is being used. Where the result is considerably
|
||||
similar to the original, then further justification will be required to explain how this is inevitable.
|
||||
|
||||
# Justifying the interoperability requirement of every routine
|
||||
|
||||
For each routine, there should also exist a *.interop file that in comments explains the requirement, and is
|
||||
followed by one or more test programs that can be demonstrated to not work if this region of the original ROM
|
||||
does not perform the prescribed function, or if the function is moved to another location in the ROM.
|
||||
|
||||
To be as defensive as possible on this front, we need to ideally demonstrate clearly that said program jumps/
|
||||
calls the prescribed routine at the specific location, so that it is unambiguous that the function must exist
|
||||
at the location. A good way to cover this for many situations would be to generate logs of many programs
|
||||
running, and capturing exactly which entry points are called from where. That is, to generate a call-graph
|
||||
that is the combination of many program runs, so that we can build up a map of what is required in terms of
|
||||
correct function of the system. This then defines the interface exactly from the perspective of interoperability.
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user