Comparing development costs and roi
In Table 1, we compare the different steps required when handling MPU traps with and without the TASKING Safety Checker. The third column shows the relative costs of each activity when performed with and without the TASKING Safety Checker.
Also, an approximation of the cost reduction of MPU related test and bug fixing costs achieved for each step by using the TASKING Safety Checker is given. We assume conservatively that 40% of overall MPU related development costs goes into test specification, 40% into test execution, 15% into code reviews and 5% into bug fixing. Furthermore, we assume that the cost ratio of fixing bugs during development, during testing, and in the field is 1:10:100 :
Usage scenarios with the tasking safety checker
The TASKING Safety Checker can be used as a stand-alone tool which accepts any ANSI C / ISO C / C90 / C99 compliant source files, irrespective of whether the source code is compiled with or without a TASKING compiler. Also, the TASKING Safety Checker can be configured to handle many non-standard C extensions. It is easy to set up and performs a complete memory access violation analysis on the given sources using an easy-to-create, text-based access rights table as the input (see the workflow section above for an example).