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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,bcdbb0729ae8fbff
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Strange story with Ada validation
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <f7a8df87-84c4-474d-86e9-322714169b2a@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <4683c5b7-29ef-4cac-a69b-e7d14a69f40d@j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<hkqboh$a49$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.172
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265679457 2715 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2010 01:37:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 01:37:37 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.172;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9012
Date: 2010-02-08T17:37:37-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 9 f=E9v, 01:54, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> The ARA took over responsiblity for validations (now called "conformity
> assessment") following an ISO standardized process when AJPO was closed.
> Seeh ttp://www.adaic.com/compilers/testing.htmlfor some information and
> articles on the process.
I had a look at AdaIC, but missed this one page.

> But note that no one is formally doing these any
> more; the major value of the process is the existence of the test suite a=
nd
> the fact that compilers follow it.
Yes, I was indeed wondering about it. There was this article, and the
words about required ACATS updates coming with some Ada 2005 Issues.
This was looking strange to me : an article stating there was no
validation next to Ada 95, and the ACATS seeming in very good health
and applying to Ada 2005.

> Since vendors all follow the ACATS
> without formal testing, there hasn't been too much demand for the extra
> costs involved with the formal testing.
This can be pointed as a good point indeed.

So this is mainly a matter of trust after all (if I've correctly
understood every thing).

By the way, as the ACATS tests suite is publicly available, any one
can check a compiler him/her-self if he/she ever wanted to do so
(while driving alone thousands of tests if probably not a kind of
holiday time).

I guess having a single and common instance taking over this
responsibility, is mainly a matter of funding.

Thanks for the lighting (to be honest, I was expecting a reply from
you).

Although informal, this is still there and in good place (I feel at
rest now).