From: john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe)
Subject: Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?
Date: 1999/04/26
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3724a4d0.3315108@news.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Xnu2xLAvVwI3EwFv@tioman.demon.co.uk
Mark Elson <mark@tioman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This question was prompted by the fact that a new space project may be
>using GNAT in conjunction with an un-validated RTOS on the grounds that
>the combination is in widespread use and that GNAT is a "very good"
>compiler (also due to the abundance of developers as well as users).
There are a number of space projects already that have been built
using unvalidated compilers. The version of the TLD Ada 83 compiler
for a MIL-STD-1750A target that was mandated for Ada use on ESA's
Envisat-1 project was not validated (at least not when I used it).
Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-04-26 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-04-25 0:00 Are un-validated compilers unsafe? Mark Elson
1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-27 0:00 ` GNORT question (was Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?) Ada2001
1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-26 0:00 ` Are un-validated compilers unsafe? Jim Chelini
1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-26 0:00 ` John McCabe [this message]
1999-04-27 0:00 ` Mark Elson
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox