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,e4e62e0a73fb6667,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: brashear@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Philip Brashear) Subject: The Ada Compiler Evaluation System Date: 1996/04/17 Message-ID: <4l2nt1$p4k@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147963484 organization: CTA INCORPORATED newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: There has been a rather acrimonious discussion of compiler validation and evaluation recently, and I really don't understand the bitterness. Those of us in the (?quasi?) official Ada compiler testing business understand "validation" to mean testing against the standard (insofar as that is possible), simply to get _some_ assurance that the compiler implements the standard correctly. We know that we cannot _ensure_ that any compiler does so. On the other hand, we understand "evaluation" to mean some attempt to determine whether a compiler meets the performance and usability needs of a particular project. (We _assume_ that the compiler implements the standard correctly.) Now, I don't claim that these two notions are completely defined, nor that "our" interpretations are the only reasonable ones. However, as one who has led both ACVC (validation suite) and ACES (evaluation suite) development efforts and the application thereof to various Ada compilers, I can state that these are the interpretations that have gone into the efforts. If there is a need to change the direction of either, then there should be a discussion along the lines of "I suggest that the validation (or evaluation) effort be modified as follows:". Unfortunately, it is very likely that no more DoD funding will be applied to the evaluation effort, and the funding available for maintenance/upgrade of the validation suite (and process) will be quite limited. HOWEVER (he said, finally getting to his point), both the ACVC and the ACES are extremely useful. ACVC usage by vendors is pretty much required (at least for those selling to the U.S. Government); ACES usage isn't. Some vendors are known to use the ACES; perhaps all do. There are organization (such as mine) who are prepared to perform ACES evaluations and comparisons on a fee basis. I don't know what one would _expect_ such a service to cost, so I don't know whether someone would think the price to be a bargain or a rip-off. Anyway, I can provide cost estimates to organizations having a serious interest. You may not need the services of another organization to use the ACES; we think it's now pretty well documented and fairly user-friendly. If you're concerned about compiler selection (actually, implementation selection, including hardware, etc.), I encourage you to check out the ACES. It's available to one and all by anonymous FTP (sw-eng.falls-church.va.us:public/AdaIC/testing/aces/v2.1) or via the Web (http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/testing/aces/). Phil Brashear CTA INCORPORATED 5100 Springfield Pike, Suite 100 Dayton, OH 45431 Voice: (513) 258-0831 Facsimile: (513) 252-3680 brashear@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us brashear@smtplink.cta.com brashepw@msrc.wpafb.af.mil brashear@saber.udayton.edu