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: 103376,2702c1ed8be62863 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* Date: 1998/12/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 422162280 References: <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch> <366E97F8.776355C4@pwfl.com> <74q94e$pbd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-12-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <74q94e$pbd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes: > Are you talking Ada 83 here? I guess so since x86 without > x87 is more contemporary with Ada 83. In that case it > should be pointed out that ALL Alsys cross-products came > with a full IEEE floating-point simulator (I wrote it :-) > that allowed operation without hardware floating point. Agreed and understood. Unfortunately, the issue was validated Ada (83) compilers. There were at least two cases I know of where the decision was to require an additional validation without the (optional) FP chip instead of just allowing all code that required floating point to be generated assuming FP hardware. One was the Desktop III contract. (I think that is the right Roman numeral.) Support for desktop machines without floating point processors added more to the contract cost than could possibly have been saved by buying machines without the FP chips, and I doubt that any machines without FP chips were ever bought under the contract--except for testing. This isn't/wasn't/shouldn't be an Ada issue, but it was seen as one. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...