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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 17:58:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!lon1-news.nildram.net!213.253.16.105.MISMATCH!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: 26 Dec 2003 20:58:12 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com> <3bf1uvg2ntadvahfud2rg6ujk24sora6gr@4ax.com> <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com> <45cs9hAbLc6$EAAx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3fe9f0d7.104475725@News.CIS.DFN.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1072490305 93115 80.67.180.195 (27 Dec 2003 01:58:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:58:25 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3835 Date: 2003-12-26T20:58:12-05:00 Chris Hills writes: > That is the problem. A non-validated Ada compiler would be no more value > than a good C compiler. That's a pretty strong statement, and I would argue demonstrably false. The public GNAT compiler 3.15p is non-validated (in the strictest technical sense; that specific version does not come with a validation certificate). The version of Ada most likely to run on 8 bit machines would have no tasking, no exceptions, and possibly no floating or fixed point, or dynamic dispatching. That would still be a far better language than C! Packages, generics, strong typing in general, aggregates, representation clauses; none of these make demands on the run-time environment, but all are very powerful programming language features. > Actually a good C compiler eg the Keil C51 that has been extensively > used in safety related projects by a large number of people would be > better simply because of the empirical field usage compared to a > non-validated Ada compiler with a small user base.. Well, if by "better" you solely mean "more trusted", or possibly "more thoroughly tested", I would agree. But I'd still use the Ada compiler, and write thorough unit tests. I don't trust _any_ compiler to not have bugs when running _my_ code. -- -- Stephe