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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!su-sierra.arpa!Mendal
From: Mendal@SU-SIERRA.ARPA (Geoff Mendal)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: British Validations
Message-ID: <8603250130.AA08557@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 17:22:25 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8603250130.AA08557
Posted: Mon Mar 24 17:22:25 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 01:15:57 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I find the news of having two mutually exclusive
ACVC's disturbing.  I would very much like someone
to comment on why there will soon be two ACVC suites
floating around.  What's the deal?

In any case, as most of know anyway, just because a compiler
passes the ACVC, doesn't make it usable.  I have walked the
SIGAda halls and "evaluated" many validated compilers.  As
you would expect, some of them are wonderful, and others I
found unusable. (No names will be mentioned.)  Ada compiler
consumers should still beware of what they are buying, even 
with an ACVC label on it.        gom
-------