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,a4ac379de0af89d6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: ACT announces first 100% validations of Ada 95 compilers
Date: 1997/03/11
Message-ID: <5g2cdq$244$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 224567373
References: <331FDDB7.7520@bix.com> <5frl9d$19d$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <332412BB.665C@elca-matrix.ch>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <332412BB.665C@elca-matrix.ch> Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch writes:
>Did optimisation cause problems for the validation ? I'm asking this
>because we have had many optimisation related problems with non-GNAT
>compilers, to the point that we cannot deliver any code compiled with
>optimisation.

We've rarely tried experimenting with options on ACVC.  In general,
there have been very few optimization problems with GNAT; most problems
occur with or without optimization.  GCC (and hence GNAT) used to have
the property that optimization was more reliable than no optimization
because it was more heavily used, but, at the moment I'd say both are
roughly equally reliable.

That being said, however, we became aware about a week ago about a bug
that would cause some ACVC tests to fail on Sparc with optimization
turned on.  That turned out to be a GCC bug, which I fixed this morning.