From: Mark Elson <mark@tioman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?
Date: 1999/04/27
Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Kf7xvWA+PYJ3EwNt@tioman.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Xnu2xLAvVwI3EwFv@tioman.demon.co.uk
Many thanks for all the excellent replies. They confirmed what I
suspected - that with its current meaning, "validated compiler" does not
relieve you of V&V effort for safety critical systems (we're working to
STANAG 4404, a NATO standard - seems to be more pragmatic than DO-178B
or Def Stan 00-55). What I wasn't sure of was if there was any added
value to using one at all (even if only perceived). It seems not if you
use a known good compiler anyway.
--
Mark Elson
prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-04-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-04-25 0:00 Are un-validated compilers unsafe? Mark Elson
1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-27 0:00 ` GNORT question (was Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?) Ada2001
1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-26 0:00 ` Are un-validated compilers unsafe? Jim Chelini
1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-26 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-04-27 0:00 ` Mark Elson [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox