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,e4e62e0a73fb6667
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: The Ada Compiler Evaluation System
Date: 1996/04/24
Message-ID: <dewar.830400776@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151308367
references: <4l2nt1$p4k@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>
 <31761BD5.7D11@lmtas.lmco.com> <dewar.830136352@schonberg>
 <317B7757.4849@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"OK. Given that" [t]he DoD should require of all Ada vendors only those
quality criteria which arguably apply in a cost-effective manner across the
board to all DoD users of Ada," what should be included in that criteria?
Should it be the ACVC? Should it be a different ACVC? Should it be something
in addition to the ACVC? Should it be something instead of the ACVC?"

A starting point would be to study what has already been decided in this
area by the project team and advisory committee for the new ACVC test
suite. In particular, I would take a little time to study the ACVC suite,
both old and new.