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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a73e561812bfa0d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-15 20:18:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F3DA297.1000406@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [GNAT commercial USE] -- can i use GNAT to develop a closed source commercial application ? References: <20030815093016.00005ce8._elh_@_terma_._com_> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.71.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1061003932 66.31.71.243 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41549 Date: 2003-08-16T03:18:52+00:00 List-Id: Simon Wright wrote: > Nor would GCC's C, C++ compilers be, of course. > > I expect you could get GNAT certified, but you would have to pay ACT > quite a bit of money. (The ACATS suite is available for download but > it is not, AIUI, easy to use). > > Last time I asked, many Ada compilers' certificates had run out (I may > have misunderstood this). > > But in any case, the affordable Ada compilers (public GNAT, Aonix, RR > .. any others?) are all going to do an excellent job for you. > > Our viewpoint for our supported GNAT compilers is generally that we > believe the compilers could be validated if our customer wanted to pay > an extra -whatever- over the contract cost, but neither he nor we will > gain from it in practice. It doesn't cost that much to get a validated version of GNAT. It also doesn't cost much to run the ACVC tests against your environment. The last time I worked on a project where doing both of those was considered good practice, the result was interesting. The full validation report had 18 tests marked as non-applicable for one reason or another, plus the usual on number of digits in float types. Fourteen of those tests passed in our environment, and four printed failed. The first three were oh, yeah, no brainers, and the fourth resulted in spending more time than running the tests. I don't want to go into why we spent so much time on the analysis. I'll just say that the system had cryptographic components, and the deviation from the RM, while it was perfectly justifiable in terms of compiler validation, meant we had to redo part of our analysis of the code partitioning. So in one sense it was all very worthwhile, while in another, it was a lot of makework. (In the end, no code was changed as a result.) -- Robert I. Eachus "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh