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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b72d002ed8eb1ec
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-22 00:36:51 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Peter_Klein@bedi.demon.co.uk (Peter Klein)
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!bedi.demon.co.uk!Peter_Klein
Subject: Ada compiler validation procedures, interpretations
Reply-To: Peter_Klein@bedi.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 08:12:53 +0000
Message-ID: <785491973snz@bedi.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Date: 1994-11-22T08:12:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Sorry, had some trouble last night getting this out:

Some time ago I asked after _validation scope_ in this forum and received some 
valuable hints. Many thanks!

Having done some further reading into the subject (Ada compiler validation 
Procedures Version 3.1 obtained from the AdaIC) I am left with some further 
queries, which I hope some knowledgable people will care to answer.

1) Glossary (para 2 of val proc)

I assume, that the term Ada COMPILER is meant to include e. g. any linker, 
builder, loader programs and any target run-time system, operating system, 
loader support etc. if not already included in the definition of the 
host/target machines. Correct?

The term Ada IMPLEMENTATION adds to the above term Ada COMPILER the physical 
host and target machines (to the vendor's definition of deliverables, e. g. 
including board support packages, boot ROMs etc.). Correct?


2) Retargeting of an Ada Compiler/Implementation

I understand, that retargeting of an Ada compiler from a say 68030 VME board to 
a 68040 VME board can be considered as _adaptive maintenance_. Correct?

Such a _derived implementation_ could be validated by registration, if all
prerequisites of para 6.2 of the val procs are met, e. g. 6.2 c).
This subpara mandates, that the derived compiler "...has been tested..." 
against the test suite used for the base implementation. How does this tie in 
with item 4 of the registration request, which is talking about derived 
implementations, that were not fully tested?

Finally, what kind of evidence is generally accepted for a registration 
request, in case a derived implementation is not fully tested?


3) Mil-Std1815A/STANAG3912 vs. validation

If a contract requires Ada iaw STANAG 3912 respectively Mil-Std 1815A to be 
used, does this require the use of a _validated implementation? 


Thanks in advance for any reply.

Cheers, Peter


-- 
Peter Klein