Re: Ada Validation

[bowmanc@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Carl Bowman)]

In article <00001a73+00002c38@msn.com>, Kenneth Mays <KMays@msn.com> wrote:
>Subject: The Validation of Ada95
>
>Greetings,
>
>The Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO) runs the show in validating Ada95 
>compilers. This issues
>deal the Ada95 compiler (whether a true cross-compiler or basic 
>compiler) being compliant
>to the Ada95 RM. This means that the Ada95 compiler is not a subset 
>or superset of the
>Ada95 language - it is the standard version of the language.
>
...
>
>model. For those of you who never read DoD Directive 3405.2, it 
>states that only validated compilers may be used in mission critical 
>systems.
>Supposedly, you should see an emblem of a pentagon with the words 
>"Validated Ada" within the pentagon. Now, who is to say that a vendor 
>doesn't use the emblem to sell of a validated Ada83 compiler that can 
>compile a subset or superset of Ada95 code?!? Since the DoD Directive 
>was out in 1987, maybe we should change it to say "Validated Ada95" 
>within the pentagon. 
>
...
>
...
>
>-Ken


Thanks for your observations, but there is a separate, very different
certification mark for Ada95 compilers.  The graphic is not a pentagon
and contains the "Ada globe" and the word "Ada".  Ada83 and Ada95 are
words we use to differentiate versions of the language - the name is
still Ada.  Both certification marks clearly state the standard by
which the compiler has been certified.


If I've misunderstood your post, my apologies.


Carl Bowman
Ada Information Clearinghouse