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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f034f4cba8f609e8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew S. Whiting" <whiting@epix.net>
Subject: Re: Processors with Ada support.
Date: 1997/01/25
Message-ID: <32EAD1D0.7C47@epix.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212226219
references: <1997Jan15.144618.1@corning.com> <32DE39BC.41C6@Rational.COM>
 <dewar.854210551@merv>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: epix.net
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: whiting@epix.net
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
Date: 1997-01-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Jerome said
> 
> "Have a look at the "Compilers & Validation" part of:
> http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/"
> 
> That's fine if what you want is compilers that are officially validated,
> but may be misleading in two respects:
> 
> 1.  There are validated Ada 95 compilers that implement none of the
>         Ada 95 features (since ACVC 2.0 did not require such)
> 
> 2.  There are complete Ada 95 implementations that are not yet validated
> 
> So, it depends what you want. if you need a validated compiler, then this
> list is the one to look at. If you need an Ada 95 compiler, it may not be
> the whole story!

What sources would you recommend to get the "rest of the story"?  With
apologies to Paul Harvey.

Matt