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: 103376,66383f4b94d281e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada-95 Success Stories
Date: 1996/05/24
Message-ID: <dewar.832914704@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 156517192
references: <319a6322.2564997@news.cais.com>
 <4nv2ts$n8k@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> <31a4eb29.1625999@news.cais.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Another point to emphasize about Ada 95 validations is that during the
ACVC 2.0 transitional period (which ended at the end of March), compilers
could complete "Ada 95" validation by passing only the subset of tests 
corresponding to Ada 83. The test suite has quite a number of Ada 95
tests, but these are optional. If you look at the test results, you
will see that the profiles of validated compilers vary from zero of the
Ada 95 tests passed to a large number (more than one compiler passes
100% of the core, there is more variation in the annexes).

Nevertheless, a compiler that passes only the Ada 83 subset may still
prove highly reliable if what you have is an Ada 83 program (although
it won't help much if you want to write Ada 95!)