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: 103376,42427d0d1bf647b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: gmckee@cloudnine.com (Gary McKee) Subject: Re: Tiring Arguments Around (not about) Two Questions Date: 1996/04/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147713740 references: <00001a73+00002c20@msn.com> <828038680.5631@assen.demon.co.uk> <828127251.85@assen.demon.co.uk> <315FD5C9.342F@lfwc.lockheed.com> <3160EFBF.BF9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <31729C6E.4903@lfwc.lockheed.com> organization: McKee Consulting (Consulting in Ada) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <31729C6E.4903@lfwc.lockheed.com>, Ken Garlington wrote: > Specifically? Every time I ask about quality, you respond with arguments on > conformance. You say that conformance is an aspect of quality, yet here's > your list of where users have trouble: > > 1. Safe compiler bugs (compiler bombs or gives an incorrect message) > 2. Unsafe compiler bugs (compiler generates wrong code) > 3. Performance is inadequate > 4. Optional features define > 5. Features not defined in the RM are needed (bindings, libraries, > preprocessors, other tool interfaces). > 6. Error messages are confusing > 7. Implementation dependent decisions are different from other > compilers. > 8. Capacity limitations > > Too bad there's no industry-wide efforts to tackle _these_.... > > > The whole point of my > > comments is that they are NOT synonymous. > > Let me know if you ever decide to answer my questions. -------------------------------------------------------- Ken, As I mentioned in my previous message, there is a WELL-ESTABLISHED product/technology that is designed to address the quality issues, details are below. The ACES was developed as a result of a multi-year effort from a consortium of govt/industry/academia, certainly an "industry-wide effort" such as you suggest. The ACES specifically address several of the topics itemized above. In particular, items (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) are effectively addressed, sorry that we missed (4) and (5). Why don't we transition this discussion from the ACVC (which is NOT about quality) to a discussion of the ACES (which is about quality)? -------------------------------------------------------- There is a significant difference in purpose between validation (ACVC) and evaluation (ACES). The ACES test suite exists PRECISELY for the purpose of measuring/evaluating the "quality" of Ada compilation systems. It is quite large, complex, and very useful. I have used this system extensively and I do recommend it for the quality assessment work that you are interested in. -------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION TO THE ADA COMPILER EVALUATION SYSTEM (ACES) The Ada Compiler Evaluation System (ACES) provides performance tests, test management software, and analysis software for assessing the performance characteristics of Ada compilation and execution systems. Functionality/usability assessor tools are also provided for examining the implementation's diagnostic system, library management system, and symbolic debugger, as well as for determining compile-time and run-time capacities of the implementation. http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/testing/aces/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary McKee McKee Consulting gmckee@cloudnine.com P. O. Box 3009 voice: (303) 795-7287 Littleton, CO 80161-3009 WWW home page => --------------------------------------------------------------------