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: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control Date: 1996/10/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190992453 references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com> <54fnb1$5m7@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Phil Brashear said "Actually, ObjectAda for Windows did pass all the Annex D tests (except the one Robert referred to), but we can't quite characterize that as being "validated for Annex D". Under ACVC 2.0, implementations are validated (or not) without regard to the Specialized Needs Annexes. If an implementation chooses to try one or more of the SA Annexes, the results are reported in an attachment to the certificate. There is no certification for an SA Annex. (The UNIX versions of ObjectAda, validated under ACVC 2.0.1, did not attempt any of the Annex D tests.) Yes, this is somewhat picky, but that's what validation and certification are all about -- being picky." Well being picky is OK, but let's not obfuscate in the process! There is something very important about TSP being able to say that they passed all applicable tests in Annex D. It is possible that this will be all we ever mean by "validated for annex D", as far as I know we still did not make a decision as to whether the 2.1 certificates will have gold stars on them for SN annexes passes. So the critical question is, does a particular implementation pass all the applicable tests for a given SN annex. The VSR will answer this question. In the extended discussion about the priority test (as I recall Phil was not involved in this discussion, but I may recall wrong), the critical question was whether the test in question was failed or properly judged as inapplicable. This is a critical decision. If it is judged to be failed, then TSP cannot say that their validation includes 100% of the required tests in the SN annex, if it is judged inapplicable, then TSP can indeed say that their validation includes validation of the whole of annex D. In fact, the ruling of the AVO, after much discussion, was precisely that this test (the one requiring 31 priority levels) could indeed be ruled inapplicable for TSP, so they can claim quite rightly that their validation includes validation for the real time annex as well as the core. During the entire validation process, we have recognized the critical importance of this status (of a paritcular compiler passing all the validation tests for a given SN annex). There is still some dicussion of whether the valiation certificate will call out on the front of the certificate which SN annexes are thus validated, but this is irrelevant to the critical issue, fully and clearly documented in the VSR, of which SN annexes are covered fully. So Phil may be technically right about the phrase "validated *for* the SN annex", but this does not detract from the critical status of compilers that do indeed validate a given SN annex entirely.