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=2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE 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!ucbvax!csnet-relay.arpa!PETCHER%SVDSD%ti-eg.CSNET
From: PETCHER%SVDSD%ti-eg.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (Malcolm Petcher - 466-4146)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: COMPILER VALIDATION
Message-ID: <8603280351.AA05861@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 22:52:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8603280351.AA05861
Posted: Thu Mar 27 22:52:54 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 01:47:13 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I can see the benefit of having the British MoD allowed to validate compilers, 
but I see no reason for them to establish their own validation suite.  That's 
courting disaster.  If there is to be only one specification for the language 
there should be only one validation suite.  If MoD has the need for some 
different or additional tests, it seems they could work together with the US 
DoD ACVC to establish a common validation suite acceptable to both.

Malcolm Petcher