TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
David Tannen <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:54:13 MST
David Tannen <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (30 lines)

>It would seem to me to be much simpler to just:
>a) have the compiler process only those features that you want, and
>b) ignore formal validation of the compiler

>No one else in the commercial marketplace (e.g., automobiles, washing
>machines,etc.) worries about whether the compiler for their langauge
>(assembly or C) is validated. Why should they care if their Ada
>compiler is or not?

Exactly.  In fact if you document exactly what features are not
included in your subset compiler you would be providing potential
customers with as much information as most of the C/C++ compiler
vendors do.

>If you, the maker of the compiler, want to ensure it's correctness,
>then all  obtain a copy of the ACVC, delete those test that don't
>make sense for your (subset) compiler, and run the test suite. You
>can even provide these results to your customer upon request.

Or you could use it as part of your marketing of the compiler.

David Tannen                  Unix Email:   [log in to unmask]
Motorola-SSTG                 MS Email:     [log in to unmask]
MS: H1218                     Member:       SERC, TeamAda and TeamOS/2
8201 E. McDowell Rd.          Phone:        (602) 675-1074
Scottsdale, Arizona 85252     Beeper:       (602) 310-9188