Your browser does not support JavaScript! Skip to main content
Free 30-day trial Customer portal Careers SYSGO MCP Webinar DO-178C Handbook
 
Rapita Systems
 

Industry leading verification tools & services

Rapita Verification Suite (RVS)

  RapiTest - Unit/system testing   RapiCover - Structural coverage analysis   RapiTime - Timing analysis (inc. WCET)   RapiTask - Scheduling visualization   RapiCoverZero - Zero footprint coverage analysis   RapiTimeZero - Zero footprint timing analysis   RapiTaskZero - Zero footprint scheduling analysis

Multicore verification

  MACH178   Multicore Timing Solution   RapiDaemons

Services

  V & V Services   Qualification   Training   Tool Integration  Support

Industries

  Aerospace (DO-178C)   Automotive (ISO 26262)   Space

Other

  RTBx   Mx-Suite   Software licensing   Product life cycle policy  RVS development roadmap

Latest from Rapita HQ

Latest news

RVS 3.16 Launched
Aerospace Tech Week – November 2021
NASA selects Rapita Verification Suite for the Lunar Gateway
York Aerospace and Rocketry Society Update
View News

Latest from the Rapita blog

DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 4
DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 3
AMC 20-193 and what it means to you
DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 2
View Blog

Latest discovery pages

do178c DO-178C Guidance: Introduction to RTCA DO-178 certification
matlab_simulink MATLAB® Simulink® MCDC coverage and WCET analysis
code_coverage_ada Code coverage for Ada, C and C++
amc-20-193 AMC 20-193
View Discovery pages

Upcoming events

SYSGO + Rapita: Verifying your Multicore RTOS
2022-05-31
ERTS Congress
2022-06-01
DO-178C Multicore In-person Training
2022-07-26
Air Force FACE and SOSA TIM and Expo
2022-09-01
View Events

Technical resources for industry professionals

Latest White papers

DO178C Handbook
Efficient Verification Through the DO-178C Life Cycle
A Commercial Solution for Safety-Critical Multicore Timing Analysis
Compliance with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard
View White papers

Latest Videos

A(M)C 20-193 vs. CAST-32A: What the change means for your DO-178C Multicore project
Verifying Multicore Systems supporting the FACE standard - ATW Global 2021
Timing Analysis for Critical Aerospace Embedded Software - ATW Global 2021
Qualification-video-thumbnail
Tool qualification with RVS
Revolutionized testing with RVS 3.16
View Videos

Latest Case studies

Front cover of whitepaper collins
Delivering world-class tool support to Collins Aerospace
Supporting Collins Aerospace with DO-178C Enterprise Tool Qualification (RVS)
Cobham Aerospace Connectivity: RapiCover continues to deliver on the most challenging targets
View Case studies

Other Downloads

 Webinars

 Brochures

 Product briefs

 Technical notes

 Research projects

Discover Rapita

Who we are

The company menu

  • About us
  • Customers
  • Distributors
  • Locations
  • Partners
  • Research projects
  • Contact us

US office

+1 248-957-9801
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems, Inc.
41131 Vincenti Ct.
Novi
MI 48375
USA

UK office

+44 (0)1904 413945
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems Ltd.
Atlas House
Osbaldwick Link Road
York, YO10 3JB
UK

Working at Rapita

Careers

Careers menu

  • Current opportunities & application process
  • Working at Rapita
Back to Top

Masking MC/DC? What's all that about then?

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Masking MC/DC? What's all that about then?
2012-10-13

If you're involved in developing and verifying high integrity software (especially if DO-178B is involved), you have probably come across the use of MC/DC (modified condition/decision coverage) for helping to demonstrate that tests are thorough enough.

Sometimes, the use of masking MC/DC is also discussed. In this blog post, I briefly describe how masking MC/DC is different from "regular" (unique cause) MC/DC.

Before I talk about what masking MC/DC is, let's briefly recap what MC/DC is. In a complex decision (for example, the expression within an if-statement), you have to run enough tests to demonstrate that each individual condition can independently affect the outcome. (We also discuss this in more detail in a previous blog post). This means that for an if statement:

If (A and B) or (C and D) then
    X;
else
    Y;

You need to run pairs of tests where:

  • B, C, D remain constant. By varying A you get two different outcomes (X or Y)
  • A, C, D remain constant. By varying B you get two different outcomes
  • A, B, D remain constant. By varying C you get two different outcomes
  • A, B, C remain constant. By varying D you get two different outcomes

Each of these pairs of tests is termed an independence pair.

This suggests that we need four pairs of tests. However, if you’re smart about it, you can combine one member of an independence pair with another member of an independence pair. If you manage to do this at the best level possible, the testing can be done with five tests (in general N+1 tests for N conditions).

This relies on all of the conditions being independent. This approach is termed unique-cause MC/DC.

So what happens if conditions aren’t independent? This is where masking MC/DC comes in. Masking refers to the approach where specific conditions can mask the effects of other conditions.

The masking approach to MC/DC allows more than one condition to change in an independence pair, as long as the condition of interest is shown to be the only condition that affects the value of the decision outcome.

Using the above example, to show that A can independently affect the outcome of the decision, test cases require that B is true and (C and D) is false, so:

  • If A is true, the outcome is true
  • If A is false, the outcome is false

Provided that in both test cases (i.e where A is false and where A is true), the subexpression (C and D) is false, masking MC/DC allows the values of C and D to vary, so for example the following test vectors would be acceptable:

A B C D Outcome
True True False True True
False True True False False


One common example where masking might occur is where a condition is repeated within an expression, for example:

If (A and B) or (A and D)

More information on masking MC/DC is available in this FAA paper. You might also be interested in our white paper on Eight code coverage questions in embedded avionic systems.

White papers

DO178C Handbook

Related blog posts

1000 conditions per decision ought to be enough for anybody

.
2019-01-28

CAST-10 "Literal" Interpretation of Decision Coverage Increases Rigor of Testing Requirements

.
2015-03-25

Philippa explains: "What is MC/DC?"

.
2015-02-17

Does DO-178C require object code structural coverage?

.
2014-11-21

Pagination

  • Current page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
  • Solutions
    • Rapita Verification Suite
    • RapiTest
    • RapiCover
    • RapiTime
    • RapiTask
    • MACH178

    • Verification and Validation Services
    • Qualification
    • Training
    • Integration
  • Latest
  • Latest menu

    • News
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Videos
  • Downloads
  • Downloads menu

    • Brochures
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Case Studies
    • Product briefs
    • Technical notes
    • Software licensing
  • Company
  • Company menu

    • About Rapita
    • Careers
    • Customers
    • Distributors
    • Industries
    • Locations
    • Partners
    • Research projects
    • Contact
  • Discover
    • AMC 20-193
    • What is CAST-32A?
    • Multicore Timing Analysis
    • MC/DC Coverage
    • Code coverage for Ada, C & C++
    • Embedded Software Testing Tools
    • Aerospace Software Testing
    • Automotive Software Testing
    • Certifying eVTOL
    • DO-178C
    • WCET Tools
    • Worst Case Execution Time
    • Timing analysis (WCET) & Code coverage for MATLAB® Simulink®

All materials © Rapita Systems Ltd. 2022 - All rights reserved | Privacy information | Trademark notice Subscribe to our newsletter