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,ac31ec0a3cebb176
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>
Subject: Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?
Date: 1999/04/26
Message-ID: <7g233h$jo3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471072215
References: <Xnu2xLAvVwI3EwFv@tioman.demon.co.uk>
 <37247F6E.CDA0D383@ma.aonix.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x6.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Apr 26 16:09:25 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37247F6E.CDA0D383@ma.aonix.com>,
  Jim Chelini <jchelini@ma.aonix.com> wrote:
> Don't confuse compiler validation with safety.  Compiler
> validation is a  determination that the compiler conforms
> to the language definition.

Even that is too strong. No test suite can demonstrate
conformance to a language definition. Perhaps the best
thing is to put "partial" before determination.

I think one thing you can say about validation is that
it means that the implementors really understand the
Ada Reference Manual, and treat it with respect. In other
words, they have worked hard to get to 100% conformance
with the tests, and that general attitude that understands
the importance of conformance will carry through to areas
not specifically tested by the suite.

Note that validation also includes a statement by the
vendor that they have no intentional deviations from the
standard.


-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own