Re: More reliable compilers (of some programming langauges) than GNAT

[Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> I said:
> ...
>> Perhaps it isn't obvious to a non-native English speaker, but "quality
>> free compiler" reads as "a compiler free of any quality" (or "a compiler
>> without any quality"). As Christoph joked, it isn't the least bit hard to
>> find any such compiler (although I would argue that that doesn't apply to
>> any Ada compilers, you'd probably have to look at C or some other
>> language for such a compiler :-).
> 
> BTW, one reason for this is that there is a freely available independent
> test suite for Ada (the ACATS), so it is highly unlikely to see an Ada
> compiler that can't process some basic construct. So far as I'm aware, all

See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83027#c17
for such a bug (recently found by me, about shared libraries).

> Ada vendors use the ACATS as part of their standard QA, so basic bugs do
> not get into circulation. Most other languages do not have such a test
> suite, so both the commonality and the correctness of implementations is
> much more dependent on the vendor.
> 
>                                             Randy.
-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org