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: 1996/04/26 Message-ID: <830539635.7518.1@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 151573869 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> <3160EFBF.BF9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <829851188.11037@assen.demon.co.uk> <830205883.24190@assen.demon.co.uk> <317CB1C1.431F@lmtas.lmco.com> <830369569.19364@assen.demon.co.uk> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >John McCabe said >"I'm loathe to believe that any of the ACVC tests are truly useless >(although I have to admit I haven't looked at them so far), but in a >general case, where the particular test mentioned was _truly_ useless, >then I would choose the performance improvement." >I really think that if you want to express opinions on the ACVC suite, >new or old, you might find it quite helpful to look at the tests! Robert, I am (unfortunately) not paid to be an Ada expert, I have other work to do, and I'm just trying to find out how I can make that job easier and less stressful by contributing to a discussion on compiler quality. When I have some time, or when I can persuade my company to let me, I will look at the ACVC tests, but the fact that I haven't so far must not exclude me from expressing opinions on the effect of the tests, based on the experience I have of using the products that have (mysteriously) passed the tests! Best Regards John McCabe