* Ada Validation
@ 1989-01-27 13:15 Gregory S. Lakis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gregory S. Lakis @ 1989-01-27 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hello Everyone,
I have a question about Ada compiler validation. To be specific 680X0
cross compiler evaluation. We are currently using the Verdix 680X0
cross compiler for a variety of projects. When we download the program
to our target environment which is a 68020 based "home grown" CPU board
is that code still considered to be "validated" Ada? I have had a
variety of answers ranging from a straight yes, to "no, you have to
send your CPU board to the vendor for revalidation" which is totally
unacceptable for classified hardware. Any opinions would be greatly
appreciated.
Greg Lakis
Raytheon - Submarine Signal Division
Portsmouth, RI 02871
gsl@rayssde.ray.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Ada Validation
@ 1996-03-27 0:00 Kenneth Mays
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kenneth Mays @ 1996-03-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada Validation
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
@ 1996-03-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-03-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tore said
"Tore said
"GNAT 3.00 for SGI is validated (I'm not sure how it works, but I guess
3.04 is validated too (?)). The other ports use more or less the same
code. If I've understood resent postings correctly, the reason for not
validating all the ports is that a validation is expensive (I think
somebody mentioned twenty grands, which is much to spend on a free
compiler"
Tore, you have not understood these "recent postings", indeed I have
no idea what you are talking about. GNAT may be free, but of course
serious use of GNAT with support is not free, and users who rquire
validation are typically not casual hobbyists (who tpically do not
care about validation).
Ada Core Technologies is planning on validating on all major targets.
We decided not to do any further validations under 2.0, and we are
now working on 2.0.1 validation.
Out validation schedule is not determined, and will be decided on the
basis of commercial considerations and requirements.
Note that the 3.04 that you pull off by anonymous FTP is not technically
validated, althugh it may be from the same code base as the validated
compiler. To have a compiler that meets formal validation requirements,
you must have a contract with one of the certificate holders, i.e.
from SGI or from Ada Core Technlogies.
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada Validation
1996-03-27 0:00 Kenneth Mays
@ 1996-03-28 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carl Bowman @ 1996-03-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <00001a73+00002c38@msn.com>, Kenneth Mays <KMays@msn.com> wrote:
>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.
>
...
>
>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.
>
...
>
...
>
>-Ken
Thanks for your observations, but there is a separate, very different
certification mark for Ada95 compilers. The graphic is not a pentagon
and contains the "Ada globe" and the word "Ada". Ada83 and Ada95 are
words we use to differentiate versions of the language - the name is
still Ada. Both certification marks clearly state the standard by
which the compiler has been certified.
If I've misunderstood your post, my apologies.
Carl Bowman
Ada Information Clearinghouse
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada Validation
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tore Joergensen @ 1996-03-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Tore, you have not understood these "recent postings", indeed I have
: no idea what you are talking about. GNAT may be free, but of course
: serious use of GNAT with support is not free, and users who rquire
: validation are typically not casual hobbyists (who tpically do not
: care about validation).
I agree :-)
BTW, when I tried to find the posting I thought I had seen (about 20K),
I wasn't able to find it, so I was probably mixing together something...
I'm sorry about that (Well, I'm not sorry that it doesn't cost $20K :-).
: Ada Core Technologies is planning on validating on all major targets.
: We decided not to do any further validations under 2.0, and we are
: now working on 2.0.1 validation.
: Out validation schedule is not determined, and will be decided on the
: basis of commercial considerations and requirements.
: Note that the 3.04 that you pull off by anonymous FTP is not technically
: validated, althugh it may be from the same code base as the validated
: compiler. To have a compiler that meets formal validation requirements,
: you must have a contract with one of the certificate holders, i.e.
: from SGI or from Ada Core Technlogies.
At least I got some information I didn't know :-)
--
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Tore B. Joergensen | e-mail : tore@lis.pitt.edu |
| Centre Court Villa | web : http://www.pitt.edu/~tojst1 |
| 5535 Centre Avenue # 6 | |
| Pgh, PA 15232, USA | Norwegian MSIS-student at Univ. of Pgh. |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada Validation
1996-03-27 0:00 Kenneth Mays
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
@ 1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tore Joergensen @ 1996-03-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kenneth Mays (KMays@msn.com) wrote:
: 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
GNAT 3.00 for SGI is validated (I'm not sure how it works, but I guess
3.04 is validated too (?)). The other ports use more or less the same
code. If I've understood resent postings correctly, the reason for not
validating all the ports is that a validation is expensive (I think
somebody mentioned twenty grands, which is much to spend on a free
compiler). I've not had any problems with GNAT 3.01 for OS/2, and I think
it is a very nice place to start without breaking the bank :-). Free is a
very attractive price for students and hobby-programmers. BTW, it is
not available on all systems, just a fairly big bunch.
--
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Tore B. Joergensen | e-mail : tore@lis.pitt.edu |
| Centre Court Villa | web : http://www.pitt.edu/~tojst1 |
| 5535 Centre Avenue # 6 | |
| Pgh, PA 15232, USA | Norwegian MSIS-student at Univ. of Pgh. |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-03-28 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1989-01-27 13:15 Ada Validation Gregory S. Lakis
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-03-27 0:00 Kenneth Mays
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Carl Bowman
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Tore Joergensen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox