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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d14d8f47ca035bf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-05 07:46:18 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Generic vs. C++ Templates Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:25:10 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9ahv88$99b$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3AC8E799.189EE51C@bigfoot.com> <3ACA4A12.9FC665D5@bigfoot.com> <3ACBBE65.D65BB767@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 986480712 9515 136.170.200.133 (5 Apr 2001 14:25:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Apr 2001 14:25:12 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6510 Date: 2001-04-05T14:25:12+00:00 List-Id: Well, I think it is true that *technically* speaking, an Ada compiler could read any Ada program and generate code that produced the exception Program_Error (or some other appropriate exception).(1) All you have to do is posit that the target implementation is too small to contain *any* legal Ada program of *any* size. This would be perfectly legal and presumably ought to pass the validation suite. (This is why I have argued in the past against the "perfectly legal" defense when a compiler doesn't do what I want it to do. Its "Perfectly Legal" and "Totally Useless" :-) I agree that it is less important to me to have a validated compiler than it is to have one that produces correct, efficient and usable results. It does give one a warm fuzzy feeling though if the compiler *is* validated because, if nothing else, it implies that the validation suite has been used as a test case and the bulk of it must have worked. Its significantly more than a smoke test of the software. Also, it makes you feel comfortable that you can use any of the language constructs and (with the possible exception of some corner cases) get the compiler to recognize what you're trying to do & hopefully do it. (1) Hey! Anybody want to gang up and implement the worlds smallest/fastest Ada compiler & get it validated? :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "DuckE" wrote in message news:WMRy6.676244$U46.20968423@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com... > I believe GNAT was the first (and may still be the only, I'm not sure) to be > "validated" for Ada95 including all annexes. This does not mean the > compiler is without bugs, nor does it mean that all features described by > the Ada95 standard are implemented. It merely means that the validation > test suite was passed. > > Don't get me wrong, I think validation is a good thing. But you must be > careful about what it really means. > > BTW: I don't really care whether the compiler I use is validated, but it is > reassuring. >