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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e4e62e0a73fb6667
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: The Ada Compiler Evaluation System
Date: 1996/04/26
Message-ID: <3180CC5C.321F@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151581447
references: <4l2nt1$p4k@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>
 <31761BD5.7D11@lmtas.lmco.com> <dewar.830136352@schonberg>
 <317B7757.4849@lmtas.lmco.com> <dewar.830400776@schonberg>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> A starting point would be to study what has already been decided in this
> area by the project team and advisory committee for the new ACVC test
> suite. In particular, I would take a little time to study the ACVC suite,
> both old and new.

Been there, done that. Even after I quoted excerpts from the ACVC 2.0
documentation, the response has been to RTFM and to "stop bashing those
poor ACVC folks."

No possible benefit is possible from this conversation. I withdraw. Good bye.

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"