From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!acad3.alaska.edu!ftpam1
From: ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu (MUNTS PHILLIP A)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AdaZ Validation?
Message-ID: <1990Dec21.132834.3779@ims.alaska.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 90 13:28:34 GMT
References: <9012201150.AA05505@NSWC-WO.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ims.alaska.edu (J Random USENET)
Reply-To: ftpam1@acad3.alaska.edu
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9012201150.AA05505@NSWC-WO.ARPA>, wdence@NSWC-WO.NAVY.MIL (Walter Dence) writes...
> 
>     AdaZ does not appear on the Nov90 or Dec90 validation lists.  In
>addition it does not appear as being in line to be validated.  I for
>one am extremely unhappy about unvalidated Ada compilers.  Why have
>Ada if there is no discipline?

     The first page of the manual, "Summary of Changes" lists as the last
item: "Validated under ACVC version 1.11."

     On the other hand, it didn't come with a validation certificate like 
another compiler I bought.  On the third hand, I have only examined a small
sample (2) of compilers so I don't know whether the certificate is normal or
not.

     You won't want to use AdaZ for production anyway.

Philip Munts N7AHL
NRA Extremist, etc.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks