From: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes.
Date: 1999/02/25
Date: 1999-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b4kk3$p1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 727154320wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk
In article <727154320wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>,
jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 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.
No need to guess! Go look at the ACVC tests. Yes, of course
there are tests for annex H! It is certainly true, as it is
true for all parts of the language, that not all
requirements are tested, and indeed, it is also true that
Annex H has a rather high proportion of untestable stuff,
but that does not mean it is ALL untestable.
Indeed, the tests cannot be entirely trivial, since as
people have noticed that many Ada 95 compilers cannot pass
these tests, and do not claim annex H conformance as a
result!
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
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
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar [this message]
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