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: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-17 05:08:31 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_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F3F703E.4080802@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: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. References: <3F3D8AA4.7050703@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.66.65 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1061122110 66.31.66.65 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:08:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:08:30 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:08:31 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41635 Date: 2003-08-17T12:08:31+00:00 List-Id: Simon Wright wrote: > I seem to remember that this may be a problem: the options you need to > validate may not be those you would want/need to use in a real-world > application. > > Apologies if this is FUD ... Yes, it is true, but it is hardly FUD. GNAT for example, has several dozen compiler options that normally result in an unvalidated compiler. AFAIK, the only option you normally need to use in validation mode is -gnato. But all that is irrelevant to YOU. If you want to compile with some set of compiler options, ACT will do the work to validate with that option set. This may mean that some ACATS tests will print failed, and ACT will have to document why it is "difficult or impossible" to pass those tests in your circumstances, or why those tests are not applicable in your situation. A simple example is that you might want/need to compile with a non-Latin1 character set as your default in the run-time environment. In other words, you may be producing code that will run in an environment where the "standard" input and output is in Cyrillic, Hebrew, or Kanjii. Your validation certificate will document that fact, and the test results will match. Or you might not want to use Ada tasking and want to run in an environment where it is not supported. Another example is that you might compile in a "non-standard" mode, with debugger support during development, and use a different set of compiler options for the production version. Or you may insist on keeping the debugging support in the final code because you want to test the actual code you are going to use. Your choice. Again what you get for your validation effort is documentation of what the compiler will do in your intended environment. It would be silly to pay for it, and not read the VSR (validation summary report). You can do that if all it really means to you is a check-off. But it should say that you went to the effort because you needed the greater reliability that having a validated compiler promises. And of course, part of that promise is that you will have available to you information that explains how your situation differs from the assumed standard environment. -- 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