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,ed10464a32a13e16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: is there any validated Ada 95 compiler ? Date: 2000/01/17 Message-ID: <87901oac40.fsf@think.mihalis.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 573801491 Sender: cm@think.mihalis.net References: <85mhho$nji@netnews.hinet.net> <387F132B.C617F475@icn.siemens.de> <85ndij$uio$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-Server-Date: 17 Jan 2000 16:37:01 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-01-17T16:37:01+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison writes: > Neither of these compilers are officially validated. However, they are > both essentially similar to validated compilers that are available for a > fee from their associated vendors. But if you *need* that validation for > contractual reasons, you'll have to pay for it. Where essentially similar often means functionally identical. -- Chris Morgan http://mihalis.net