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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-17 05:30:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey Creem" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F3D8AA4.7050703@attbi.com> <3F3F703E.4080802@attbi.com> Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.5.146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1061123402 66.31.5.146 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:30:02 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:30:02 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:30:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41637 Date: 2003-08-17T12:30:02+00:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:3F3F703E.4080802@attbi.com... > Simon Wright wrote: > > > I seem to remember that this may be a problem: the options you need to > > validate may not be those you would want/need to use in a real-world > > application. > > > > Apologies if this is FUD ... > > Yes, it is true, but it is hardly FUD. GNAT for example, has several > dozen compiler options that normally result in an unvalidated compiler. > AFAIK, the only option you normally need to use in validation mode is > -gnato. > What about -fstack-check? > But all that is irrelevant to YOU. If you want to compile with some set > of compiler options, ACT will do the work to validate with that option > set. This may mean that some ACATS tests will print failed, and ACT > will have to document why it is "difficult or impossible" to pass those > tests in your circumstances, or why those tests are not applicable in > your situation. > I suspect as someone who probably gets paid to be an outside auditor this will shock and astound you (and what I mean by that is not surprise you at all :)....But in my experience, most of the time when a customer requires validation they don't really know why they are asking for it. They don't usually take the time to understand why they even want a validated compiler and will not dig into the compiler option thing and are just happy if they see some piece of paper that says validated...... Also, I can't tell you the number of times over the years I have heard people say...oh...there is no validated compiler for that, I guess we have to use a C compiler (which of course is probably not validated at all).... The only thing worse than the validation/certification mess is the mind numbing implementation of the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA)...perhaps especially the Army specific version of the Joint Technical Architecture (Gotta love it...A branch specific version of Joint standard that they still call Joint....ugg).. Note that the intent of the JTA (and even the JTA-A) seems pure enough but the way these things get implemented makes one really consider wanting to build happy meals instead of software.