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: 103376,42427d0d1bf647b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies and Ada95 Standards Date: 1996/04/02 Message-ID: <828475148.18492@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145475274 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <00001a73+00002c20@msn.com> <828038680.5631@assen.demon.co.uk> <828127251.85@assen.demon.co.uk> <315FD5C9.342F@lfwc.lockheed.com> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >iKen Garlington says <..snip..> >Your comments on white box testing are not relevant for a general >validatoin facility, though of course for a given compiler, these >kind of procedures are followed. >It would not be practical to incorporate all test progrms for all bugs >found in all compilers into the ACVC (it would rapidly have tens of >thousands of tests, and become completely unmanagable). For example, >the GNAT regression tests now are larger than the whole ACVC test >suite by a considerable factor. Also, the effort of taking every >bug and putting it into ACVC form is out of the question. You are bound to find a large number of bugs from different compiler vendors cover essentially the same features of the language. In cases like these in particular, extra effort should be put in to cover these areas. Yes it may be unmanageable to cover all bugs, but I think as many tests for these bugs should be incorporated as possible. It would take a lot of effort but in the long run I believe it would be manageable - and it would benefit the Ada community as a whole. Best Regards John McCabe