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 10.204.153.5 with SMTP id i5mr209734bkw.1.1331308195421;
        Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 t13ni117871bkb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.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: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:49:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CB7FD721.118ED%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$1@dont-email.me> <CB7EF37F.1184D%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <jjd26i$k12$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net NukfMwGepfBGQbho7ccAZgg2SXOgWL4Yvo2pWZRkWGwfBU5Uah
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Z6lOrTfdnHW1+DmpPKEpw5a1jA=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Thread-Topic: Verified compilers?
Thread-Index: Acz+DESMQLGIAZzBoEy9GG6mS1vh3A==
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-09T15:49:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 09/03/2012 13:56, in article jjd26i$k12$1@dont-email.me, "Brian Drummond"
<brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:38:39 +0000, Bill Findlay wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Quem vedisti pastores?
> 
> That must be the "controversy" hinted at on Viper's Wikipedia page.
> Unfortunately, apart from the Dick Pountain article in Byte, I don't know
> anything about the VIPER, so any further info would be appreciated.

Sorry - I'm as vague on this as Wikipedia .  I dimly remember some such
thing being discovered years after the 'proof' was ballyhooed.
 
> One area, directly germane to the question above, is that there is a lot
> of commonality between the SPARK subset of Ada, and the synthesisable
> subset of VHDL, probably because both share the need for static
> elaboration of resources. I would like to see this exploited in several
> ways, whether as SystemAda (surely a better alternative to SystemC) for
> SW/HW co-verification or ESL design, or as SPARK-like proof tools applied
> to VHDL.

Interesting point.

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