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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-14 14:08:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Starner Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <0F6Nb.1623$Tt.642@reader1.news.jippii.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:08:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.183.218 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1074118107 12.72.183.218 (Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:08:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:08:27 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4413 Date: 2004-01-14T22:08:27+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:44:47 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > EVERY Ada compiler that currently exists has programs that are part of > the validation suite that they fail to compile due to capacity > limitations. Part of the validation process is to determine whether > those limitations are in some sense "reasonable". > > So as far as G�del's proof is concerned, we know that all Ada compilers > are incomplete implementations of Ada. In this sense, Ada compilers don't implement a Turing-complete language, nor are they written in a Turing-complete language. Modern computers, like any computer in the real world, are merely finite state machines, as a true Turing machine requires infinite storage, so G�del's proof doesn't apply.