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-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.227.166 with SMTP id sb6mr973767pbc.4.1331258694362;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:04:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 h9ni4517pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verified compilers?
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:04:50 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jjbog5$fvc$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <op.v91cleyiule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <jj3p5v$2tp$1@munin.nbi.dk><15276255.3865.1331124143041.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbze11><jj90mm$ciq$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <87d38nv4zf.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1331258693 16364 69.95.181.76 (9 Mar 2012 02:04:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 02:04:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-03-08T20:04:50-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote in message 
news:87d38nv4zf.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk...
> Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>> [...]  But I don't think that it would be all that practical to verify
>> an entire compiler for a real programming language.  [...]  It surely
>> would be "easy" to verify the translation of our intermediate code to
>> machine code [...]
>
> This makes me think that introducing an extra layer of intermediate
> language/code might make it easier to convince yourself that each
> transformation from one layer to another is correct (maybe even formally
> verify it).

Right. Which I suspect is all that the OP's reference has really 
"discovered"; another discovery of the obvious. (And I suppose a patent on 
it, too.)

                        Randy.