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!usc-isif.arpa!JMUNGLE
From: JMUNGLE@USC-ISIF.ARPA (Jerry Mungle)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Compiler validations
Message-ID: <8603250142.AA08709@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 15:42:16 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8603250142.AA08709
Posted: Mon Mar 24 15:42:16 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 01:16:41 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


  I attended the Conference on Ada Technology last week in Atlanta.  Interesting
things came to my attention; for example, as I understand it, the British
MoD will soon be able to validate Ada compilers.  The British validation will
have equal standing with the DoD validation.  However, the British are
developing their own ACVC... so I can see compiler X passing one but not the
other.  Perhaps more important, there would then be two standards, and it
is possible software written under one validation would not be portable to
compilers under the other validation.  Comments??
-------