Re: More 100% Ada 95 validations from ACT

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <dewar.866334886@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> The validation is only for the PPC. There is an old port for the 68K, but
> it is not being maintained at this stage, since no one seems to have any
> real interest in it. The supported product, from both Tenon and ACT, is a
> PPC only product.

That is too bad.  Last summer one or more of the developers (listed in
Tenon's documentation for CodeBuilder) indicated that while 68K
development was not worthwhile it might be that PPC hosts in the future
could generate 68K code.

> I guess more properly I should say PowerMac rather than PPC in the above
> (PPC is the chip, but the machine on which this port runs is the Power
> Mac).

Actually, my use of PowerMac may have been sloppy since only machines
made by Apple qualify for the name "Macintosh" and I believe the name
"PowerMac" (which I introduced to this thread) is a press contraction
never approved by Apple.  If the Ada validation process is anything
like the C2 evaluation process, a particular hardware platform must
have been specified, and while it may have been from Apple, "PowerMac"
was not its official name.  For those who require a validated compiler,
use of an Apple vs non-Apple PPC-based machine running MacOS is mostly
immaterial (in the worst case, require at least one Apple-branded machine
for testing and final build).

But it is certainly within the scope of c.l.a to go into semantic
nit-picking when everybody involved understood what was being said
anyway :-)

Larry Kilgallen