Related articles |
---|
And speaking of fast compilers... pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-11-12) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... sasdrf@unx.sas.com (1992-11-16) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-11-17) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... cheryl@gallant.apple.com (1992-11-17) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-11-17) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-11-23) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... macrakis@osf.org (1992-11-24) |
Re: And speaking of fast compilers... preston@miranda.cs.rice.edu (1992-12-03) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) |
Organization: | OSF Research Institute |
Date: | Tue, 24 Nov 1992 17:37:01 GMT |
Keywords: | design, testing |
References: | 92-11-057 92-11-137 |
pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) reports various speed and
correctness problems with validated Ada compilers, and concludes:
To summarize: language design is tricky and correctness doubly so.
I suppose this was meant to be _compiler_ design?
Anyway, the point is that validation tests are just tests, typically
designed to check the more obvious places where the compiler might have
gotten the semantics wrong for various reasons (oversight, laziness, using
C semantics instead of Fortran, etc.). As with any test, they can only
show the presence, never the absence, of errors. Assuming that a
validated compiler is a useful compiler can be compared to assuming that
an appliance is useful because it is listed by Underwriters Laboratories
(UL).
-s
PS For non-USians, UL is a laboratory that checks electrical equipment
for safety.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.