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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!compass.UUCP!worley
From: worley@compass.UUCP (Dale Worley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: The DoD Ada validation suite
Message-ID: <8808301844.AA09817@galaxy.compass.com>
Date: 30 Aug 88 18:44:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The idea of an Ada validation suite always struck me as a great idea.
However, several programmers here have been using several Ada
compilers, and we keep finding differences between validated
compilers.  When we look up the differences, we usually find that one
or the other compiler is deviating from the Reference Manual in some
minor way.

This leads me to believe that the validation suite is pretty weak.
(This may be a little harsh -- Ada is a huge and complicated language,
and an exhaustive validation suite would be very difficult to build.)

Does the DoD intend the validation suite to verify compiler
compliance?  If so, are they actively upgrading the suite as compiler
bugs are found?  Etc., etc.

Dale
compass!worley@think.com
Compass, Inc. -- the usual disclaimers apply