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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,677963b1aa23e668 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Dan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What's stopping you from using Ada for your next commercial project? Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:24:13 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <351ffb59-f973-4ec4-b487-7e4a3e80ae1b@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com> References: <4d78867e$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <87r5afv0qa.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4d78a96b$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d78c3c6$0$23757$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299885854 8759 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2011 23:24:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:24:14 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=mj1SqQkAAAC-ugS7xMajTlZAhqdqcRbD User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; HPDTDF; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18098 Date: 2011-03-11T15:24:13-08:00 List-Id: On Mar 11, 2:40=A0pm, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: > "Peter C. Chapin" wrote in messagenews:alpine.WNT.2= .00.1103110703470.1228@WHIRLWIND... > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Manfred Kremer wrote: > > >> Wonder what happened to the Ada Compiler Validation Suite. > >> Was this abandoned or is it still maintained to reflect recent changes= to > >> the ARM? > > > Didn't it become ACATS? > > > =A0 =A0http://www.ada-auth.org/acats.html > > > If so, it has been updated to follow the latest standard. > > Right, but keep in mind that the purpose of the ACATS is to ensure > commonality between Ada implementations, not to find bugs per-se. Of cour= se, > it does have the effect of finding bugs as well. > > In particular, the ACATS does not have a lot of tests that combine variou= s > features together. That's simply because the emphasis is on ensuring that > every feature is there and works as expected -- bugs are much more likely= to > surface when features are combined (as in the OPs question). > > So while the ACATS raises the quality of Ada compilers, it is not going t= o > come close to eliminating bugs in those compilers. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Randy. When the ACVC was originally developed, the intent was that it *would* come close to eliminating bugs in compilers. It was certainly recognized that a finite number of tests developed without knowledge of actual compiler behavior couldn't detect all bugs. But it was intended that the ACVC would be continually enhanced, so when actual compiler bugs did surface, the ACVC test objectives and corresponding tests would be reexamined and strengthened if necessary. Validation certificates expired annually, so such compiler bugs would be eliminated in the next round of testing. This is explained in John Goodenough's 1981 paper at: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/C-M.1981.220496 on page 59: "The IG will be a living document. As implementers ask questions about the standard, as implementation subtleties are discovered, and as errors in compilers turn up, the IG will be updated by those responsible for maintaining the ACVC. We expect the IG to minimize unwitting deviations from the Ada standard, despite the plethora of Ada implementations likely to emerge in the coming years. At the very least, Ada implementations should be closer to standard than those of other widely implemented "standard" languages."