Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

iSQI Exam CTAL-TM_Syll2012 Topic 3 Question 55 Discussion

Actual exam question for iSQI's CTAL-TM_Syll2012 exam
Question #: 55
Topic #: 3
[All CTAL-TM_Syll2012 Questions]

Assume you are the Test Manager in charge of independent testing for avionics applications. You are in charge of testing for a project to implement three different CSCI (Computer Software Configuration Item):

- a BOOT-X CSCI that must be certified at level B of the DO-178B standard

- a DIAG-X CSCI that must be certified at level C of the DO-178B standard

- a DRIV-X CSCI that must be certified at level A of the DO-178B standard

These are three different software modules written in C language to run on a specific hardware platform.

You have been asked to select a single code coverage tool to perform the mandatory code coverage measurements, in order to meet the structural coverage criteria prescribed by the DO-178B standard. This tool must be qualified as a verification tool under DO-178B.

Since there are significant budget constraints to purchase this tool, you are evaluating an opensource tool that is able to provide different types of code coverage. This tool meets perfectly your technical needs in terms of the programming language and the specific hardware platform (it supports also the specific C-compiler).

The source code of the tool is available.

Your team could easily customize the tool to meet the project needs. This tool is not qualified as a verification tool under the DO-178B.

Which of the following are the three main concerns related to that open-source tool selection?

K4 3 credits (2 credits out of 3 credits correct, 1 credit point)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, C, F

Contribute your Thoughts:

Lynelle
5 months ago
Yes, cost is definitely a major factor to consider when selecting a code coverage tool for avionics applications.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ty
5 months ago
I believe another concern would be the costs to qualify the open-source tool as a verification tool under the DO-178B standard.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
5 months ago
I agree with it's important for the tool to meet the DO-178B standard requirements for code coverage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tawna
5 months ago
I think the main concern should be whether the tool supports all types of code coverage required for the different certification levels.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
6 months ago
I think we should also consider if the licensing scheme of the tool aligns with the confidentiality needs of our company.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carlton
6 months ago
Yes, budget constraints are significant so we need to carefully evaluate the overall costs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denise
6 months ago
I also believe we should look into the costs to qualify the tool as a verification tool.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ling
7 months ago
I agree, that's an important concern to ensure we meet the required standard levels.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcolm
7 months ago
I think we should consider if the tool supports all the types of code coverage required by the DO-178B standard.
upvoted 0 times
Lai
6 months ago
C) What are the costs to qualify the tool as a verification tool under the DO-178B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
7 months ago
That's a valid concern. We need to ensure all required code coverage types are supported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristen
7 months ago
A) Does the tool support all the types of code coverage required from the three levels A, B, C of the DO-178B standard?
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ariel
8 months ago
Good point about the RAM. But I'm also a bit worried about the fact that the tool isn't already qualified as a verification tool. That's going to be a major hurdle to overcome.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
8 months ago
Haha, yeah, 4GB RAM for an avionics system? That's like asking a fighter jet to run Crysis. I doubt the developers of this open-source tool have much experience in the avionics world.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
8 months ago
Hmm, I don't know. I'm more concerned about the RAM requirement. 4GB? That's a lot for an avionics system, don't you think? I hope it can run on something more lightweight.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nina
8 months ago
The tool's support for the required code coverage levels is definitely the most critical aspect. I mean, if it can't do the job, then the other factors don't really matter, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
8 months ago
I agree with the main concerns mentioned. Additionally, the tool's usability and installation ease are also important factors to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
8 months ago
This is an interesting question. The main concerns I see are whether the tool supports the required code coverage levels, the cost of qualifying the tool, and the licensing compatibility with the company's confidentiality needs.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77