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: 103376,66752102482bbdca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: swhalen@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Required Metrics (GNAT et al)
Date: 2000/05/01
Message-ID: <8eksr5$kf8$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 618005529
References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net>
 <8efg68$44u$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <6EeP4.3473$wb7.310314@news.flash.net>
Organization: ?
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990517 ("Psychonaut") (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I'm not sure it would be practical to include, say, the VxWorks
metrics with the WinNT compiler, because there would be too many
references to VxWorks that would be easy to explain in the context of
the VxWorks documentation, but would make no sense in the WinNT docs.

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced it would be wrong
for a vendor to ship metrics with anything other than a validated
compiler.  The metrics would have to be very hardware / OS / compiler
dependent.

Metrics should be reproducible, but they would be reproducible only on
the platform that was validated.

Steve

-- 
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}
                Steve Whalen     swhalen@netcom.com
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}