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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f8544883f4f8ab29 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk (JP Thornley) Subject: Re: Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes. Date: 1999/02/25 Message-ID: <727154320wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 448452926 References: <36D3A1EF.E7CA2A8C@physics.BLAH.purdue.BLAH.edu> <36D43E60.9231A20@averstar.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!finch-post-10.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net![158.152.212.133] X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 919977195 mail2news:9844 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: None Reply-To: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article: <36D43E60.9231A20@averstar.com> Tucker Taft 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 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------