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: 103376,7960854d8fb4735e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: More 100% Ada 95 validations from ACT
Date: 1997/06/15
Message-ID: <dewar.866384437@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 248615000
References: <dewar.866214008@merv> <1997Jun13.161951.1@eisner>
 <dewar.866334886@merv> <1997Jun15.075531.1@eisner>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry said

<<Actually, my use of PowerMac may have been sloppy since only machines
made by Apple qualify for the name "Macintosh" and I believe the name
"PowerMac" (which I introduced to this thread) is a press contraction
never approved by Apple.  If the Ada validation process is anything
like the C2 evaluation process, a particular hardware platform must
have been specified, and while it may have been from Apple, "PowerMac"
was not its official name.  For those who require a validated compiler,
use of an Apple vs non-Apple PPC-based machine running MacOS is mostly
immaterial (in the worst case, require at least one Apple-branded machine
for testing and final build).>>


Right, and that is why I did not give exact designations in the announcement,
but instead referred people to the official validated compiler list at the
Ada IC. There you will find the precise formal definition of the targets that
are covered by the validations. At some point we will get derived validation
status as appropriate, which will cover all compatible machines.