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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.135.231 with SMTP id pv7mr635870pbb.8.1331249919726;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni4118pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verified compilers?
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:38:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CB7EF37F.1184D%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <op.v91cleyiule2fv@douda-yannick> <jj3p5v$2tp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <15276255.3865.1331124143041.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbze11>
 <jj90mm$ciq$1@munin.nbi.dk> <87d38nv4zf.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <jja1b4$8q1$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net itC4dvoW6pVpvYgWVA4ZPAG2ppFaUPWadx7Ru7a9K6da3/NEEI
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5thgU7TWyEDVBzD7gSfGT52Od+4=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Thread-Topic: Verified compilers?
Thread-Index: Acz9hJaJjagYiW4MC0yx9FpJr204BA==
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-08T23:38:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 08/03/2012 10:23, in article jja1b4$8q1$1@dont-email.me, "Brian Drummond"
<brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:04:04 +0100, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Oh.  And who verifies that the silicon is correct?
> 
> VIPER.
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIPER_microprocessor
> www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-104.pdf

Was the 'proof' of VIPER not later shown to have missed serious faults?

(BTW nice to see that someone else remembers the Rekursiv.)

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;