From: KMays@msn.com (Kenneth Mays)
Subject: Ada Validation
Date: 1996/03/27
Date: 1996-03-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00001a73+00002c38@msn.com> (raw)
Subject: The Validation of Ada95
Greetings,
The Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO) runs the show in validating Ada95
compilers. This issues
deal the Ada95 compiler (whether a true cross-compiler or basic
compiler) being compliant
to the Ada95 RM. This means that the Ada95 compiler is not a subset
or superset of the
Ada95 language - it is the standard version of the language.
Now, validation doesn't mean "bug-free". Validation only means it
complies strictly to the rules
set forth by the AJPO's Ada Compiler Validation Capability (ACVC)
model. For those of you who never read DoD Directive 3405.2, it
states that only validated compilers may be used in mission critical
systems.
Supposedly, you should see an emblem of a pentagon with the words
"Validated Ada" within the pentagon. Now, who is to say that a vendor
doesn't use the emblem to sell of a validated Ada83 compiler that can
compile a subset or superset of Ada95 code?!? Since the DoD Directive
was out in 1987, maybe we should change it to say "Validated Ada95"
within the pentagon. Then, there is an issue of 100% compliant or
98%. If you are going to use this spanking new Ada compiler for your
mission critical system do you want a non-validated, bug-ridden,
non-standard Ada something compiler in your embedded system. I think
not. You'd want your compiler to comply to some standard, and hope
you didn't spend $500+ on some hack. Then again, validation doesn't
mean bug-free - so understand that part as well. ALSO, if any
compiler doesn't conform to the validation it must state in the
documentation or program that it is a subset or superset of the
language or just a hack). This protects (you hope) the user from a
hardware dependent version (must use a certain library from a certain
computer to work correctly (read JAVA)).
Basically, if you run code on your SGI platform with a validated
Ada95 compiler - I can compile it ona Sun workstation with another
Ada95 validated compiler. You shouldn't have to modify the program to
et it to work - which makes it very portable across platforms (you
would hope). If you use C++, you'd want to compile your nonhardware
specific C++ programs using GCC V2.7.2 and have that same C++ program
on AT&T C++ Release V3.x without a hickup. If you remember True
BASIC/GWBASIC/BASICA/HP-BASIC then you might understand the
difficulties of programming for different variants of a similar
language.
For those of you who don't like standards (I'm not saying they are
the answer to everything - but try SCSI on various platforms), then
think of why ANSI/ISO, VESA, and other organizations got together. We
can stick together an get GNAT-95 bug-ridden and Ada95 complaint for
validation - since it is free and avalable on all systems. Then, we
will have somewhere to start without breaking the bank.
-Ken
next reply other threads:[~1996-03-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-03-27 0:00 Kenneth Mays [this message]
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ada Validation Carl Bowman
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1989-01-27 13:15 Gregory S. Lakis
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox