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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-13 05:26:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!217.209.241.197.MISMATCH!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!feeder1.news.jippii.net!reader1.news.jippii.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Aatu Koskensilta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3ff18d4d.603356952@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <1731094.1f7Irsyk1h@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff1b8ef.614528516@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FF1E06D.A351CCB4@yahoo.com> <3ff20cc8.635997032@News.CIS.DFN.DE> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:28:43 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.74.11.141 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@saunalahti.com X-Trace: reader1.news.jippii.net 1074000365 195.74.11.141 (Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:26:05 EET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:26:05 EET Organization: Saunalahti Customer Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:7410 comp.lang.ada:4365 Date: 2004-01-13T15:28:43+02:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Anyone who works on compiler front end and language definitions has to > be ready to dance with G�del, decidability issues and the whole nine > yards. ANY compiler for a reasonable programming language, and even for > some unreasonable ones runs right straight into G�del's proof. It > either does not accept some legal programs, accepts some illegal > programs, or never halts for some inputs. Where do you get this curious idea about G�del's proof? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus