If a source code is not recompiled when program changes are implemented, which of the following is a compensating control to ensure synchronization of source and object?

Question

Options

• AComparison of date stamping of source and object code
• BReview of audit trail of compile dates
• CReview of developer comments in executable code
• DComparison of object and executable code

• A
  85% (17)
• B
  10% (2)
• D
  5% (1)

Explanation

Comparing date stamps on source and object code (A) directly reveals synchronization gaps: if source code was modified after the last compile, its timestamp will be newer than the object code's, immediately flagging the mismatch without requiring a recompile.

Why the distractors fail:

• B is insufficient because an audit trail of compile dates only shows when compiles occurred, not whether the current source and object are actually in sync - a compile log gap doesn't prove the files differ.
• C is impractical because executable/object code is binary; developer comments exist in source, not in the compiled output, making this comparison meaningless.
• D confuses terms - object code and executable code are both outputs of compilation, so comparing them to each other reveals nothing about whether the source was the basis for either.

Memory tip: Think "stamps don't lie" - if source was secretly changed but never recompiled, its file timestamp will be younger than the object code's, like a footprint left at the scene. Timestamps are the cheapest detective tool for detecting stale compiles.

No community discussion yet for this question.