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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Five Years After Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:09:00 -0600 Organization: JSA Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <942235344.537649945.074508.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <292710c7-3520-406f-9e6b-1fb030ada211@googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 03:09:01 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226"; logging-data="27950"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk" 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 V6.00.2900.7246 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50134 Date: 2018-01-24T21:09:00-06:00 List-Id: "Maciej Sobczak" wrote in message news:292710c7-3520-406f-9e6b-1fb030ada211@googlegroups.com... >> Also having a validated compiler doesn't seem to matter as much as it did >> in the last century. ;-) > >Interestingly, within the safety-critical domain, "validation" (or >"qualification", which > is a more specialized term) means more than ACATS tests can offer, and > outside > of this domain nobody cares about it anyway. In some sense, this effort, > even > though very well-intended and representing an objectively good engineering > practice, was simply misplaced. Everyone agrees that the ACATS test suite offers a lot of value to both implementers and users (implementers because an independently sourced and trustworthy set of tests is very helpful to creating and maintaining an Ada compiler -- it is especially good IMHO in preventing errors of omission, which are often the hardest to find; users because the test suite provides a modicum of portability; Ada compilers accept essentially the same language since they've all been tested with the same set of tests). This certainly is true since I'm paid money every year to maintain and enhance the test suite -- that wouldn't be the case if people didn't see a value. The value to formal testing ("conformity assessment") is substantially less, especially nowdays when machines are fast enough that anyone can run the ACATS in a few hours. That is, you can do your own testing in a day or two to prove that your vendor is actually telling the truth about conformity. Why would you want to pay some formal testing $$$ to do what you can do yourself? Thus, I've been spending some of the ACATS effort on making it easier to self-test. Using the new(ish) grading tools and some other tools that I'll be posting shortly as "submitted tools", one can essentially test a GNAT implementation against the ACATS without a lot of hand work. (You do have to understand enough about your implementation and your target to configure the ACATS itself.) The hope is to get the value of independent testing without the costs. Of course, formal third-party testing is still available if someone wants it. Randy.