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: 103376,48942bcd105c88c6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Computer beats Kasparov
Date: 1996/02/25
Message-ID: <dewar.825305853@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141175355
references: <4g29e2$ea0$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
 <4gmbdi$rib@toads.pgh.pa.us> <4gqufh$m71@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"As long as generated code is identical each time you compile the same
code, it doesn't matter if the code generator uses AI. We use an Ada
compiler to generate safety critical embedded SW and have seen
code generation errors with code generators using common optimization
techniques."

Well the issue of whether the code generator "uses AI" (whatever the
heck that might mean) is a red herring.

The issue is whether the code generated is "reviewable" in the sens
of annex H of the RM. Achieving reviewability may involve inhibiting
some optiizations (regardless of how they are done).