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,ac31ec0a3cebb176
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe)
Subject: Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?
Date: 1999/04/26
Message-ID: <3724a4d0.3315108@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471120423
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: assen.demon.co.uk:158.152.218.101
References: <Xnu2xLAvVwI3EwFv@tioman.demon.co.uk>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 925148478 nnrp-03:2426 NO-IDENT
 assen.demon.co.uk:158.152.218.101
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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>