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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac31ec0a3cebb176 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mark Elson Subject: Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe? Date: 1999/04/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471605055 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: tioman.demon.co.uk:158.152.120.33 References: X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 925244679 nnrp-12:12443 NO-IDENT tioman.demon.co.uk:158.152.120.33 Organization: SSL MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Mark Elson Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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