Phone on Fire

Another interesting embedded systems blog. The sample chapter from her book was an entertaining read too. I got a little impatient with the explanations to the, evidently, inexperienced co-worker and I just wanted to get to the end of the chapter to see that I was right about the cause of the bug. The sloppy indentation was a little too much of a giveaway, if you ask me. I first thought that it was a perfect argument against coding standards, seeing as how that buggy line wouldn't have stood out so much if it had been following the standard, but then I realized that if there was no standard (as I've seen somewhere before), then all the lines look equally sloppy and the bad ones never stick out like that (because the buggy code is always formatted incorrectly :-)

Anyway, not your usual embedded systems reading material, in a very good way. I'm glad the Embedded Muse pointed it out.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Bryan

Thanks for a post on my blog and book. Jack Ganssle is a great inspiration to me and many others.

You are right - some of the mysteries are for beginners and others are more complicated. And most focus on coding at the metal without requiring advanced programming techniques, but instead to illustrate debugging thought processes.

I also wanted to provide a Day-in-the-Life element for newer engineers because, you know, textbooks can be boring.

I appreciate your feedback. I am always looking for ideas and guidance for a second book if I get the time.

My best,
Lisa

Technology Blog: "Real Life Debugged"
February 10, 2009 at 6:13 AM
Bryan said…
Lisa

Thanks for your comment. I hope this entry didn't sound too negative, I really enjoyed the chapter and I'm excited to read the whole story. Definitely looks more exciting than a boring textbook!
February 10, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Anonymous said…
Hi Bryan,

No, not at all. You've already successfully argued both sides of the indentation issue successfully! Amazingly, all of this is true stuff. (In the heat of deadlines, even the strictest coding standards can be completely trashed, as you are surely well aware. Oh, the nightmares this reminds me of...)

I'm glad you liked it! Now go read the whole thing and put up another review! (smiles)

My best
Lisa
February 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SystemVerilog Fork Disable "Gotchas"

This is a long post with a lot of SystemVerilog code. The purpose of this entry is to hopefully save you from beating your head against the wall trying to figure out some of the subtleties of SystemVerilog processes (basically, threads). Subtleties like these are commonly referred to in the industry as "Gotchas" which makes them sound so playful and fun, but they really aren't either. I encourage you to run these examples with your simulator (if you have access to one) so that a) you can see the results first hand and better internalize what's going on, and b) you can tell me in the comments if this code works fine for you and I'll know I should go complain to my simulator vendor. OK, I'll start with a warm-up that everyone who writes any Verilog or SystemVerilog at all should be aware of, tasks are static by default. If you do this: module top; task do_stuff ( int wait_time); #wait_time $display ( "waited %0d, then did stuff" , wa...
Read more

'git revert' Is Not Equivalent To 'svn revert'

I just learned that if you have some changes in your working tree that you want to get rid of, you don't type 'git revert' like you might guess. No, that's what cvs, subversion, mercurial, and bazaar (to name a few) use revert to mean, but not git. With git, revert is used to undo actual commits. Thankfully, you can undo your revert with another 'git revert', I just learned. So let me repeat to be clear, if you have changes to your working files that you want to abandon, DO NOT do this: git revert HEAD That will undo your last commit. Do this instead: git reset --hard HEAD I'm glad I have that straightened out now. I'm wondering if /etc was really a good place for me to start out playing with git. UPDATE: Nearly two years later and I'm still getting comments on this. I'm glad I've been able to help people out this way. The discussion in the comments is good, and one thing I'd like to point out is that I now always use...
Read more

SystemVerilog Streaming Operator: Knowing Right from Left

SystemVerilog has this cool feature that is very handy for converting one type of collection of bits into another type of collection of bits.  It's the streaming operator.  Or the streaming concatenation operator.  Or maybe it's the concatenation of streaming expressions (it's also called pack/unpack parenthetically).  Whatever you want to call it, it's nice.  If you have an array of bytes and you want to turn it into an int, or an array of ints that you want to turn into an array of bytes, or if you have a class instance that you want to turn into a stream of bits, then streaming is amazing.  What used to require a mess of nested for-loops can now be done with a concise single line of code. As nice as it is, getting the hang of the streaming operator is tough.  The SystemVerilog 1800-2012 LRM isn't totally clear (at least to me) on the details of how they work.  The statement from the LRM that really got me was this, "The stream_operator <...
Read more