From: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk (JP Thornley)
Subject: Re: Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes.
Date: 1999/02/25
Date: 1999-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <727154320wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 36D43E60.9231A20@averstar.com
In article: <36D43E60.9231A20@averstar.com> Tucker Taft
<stt@averstar.com> writes:
> I would also suspect that the safety-critical annex will be or
> is already supported by a number of vendors, even if they
> haven't validated against the Annex H tests.
Ummm, is there a smiley missing off there? I'm sure that an early
meeting of the Annex H Rapporteur (sp?) Group (about three years ago?)
decided that it wasn't possible to define any sensible tests for the
Annex H facilities.
Phil Thornley.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk |
| phil.thornley@acm.org |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-24 0:00 Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes Robert T. Sagris
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` JP Thornley [this message]
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-03-02 0:00 ` dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox