FINAL
Prepared by:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Information Technology Laboratory
Conformance Testing Group
Building 820NN, Room 517
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
USA
Executive Summary
This Version (4.2) of Ada Compiler Validation Procedures has been
updated to reflect changes in responsibility for administration of the
Ada Certification System. Beginning October 1, 1996, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will serve as the point of
contact for Ada Certification issues.
Version 4.1 of the Ada Compiler Validation Procedures was to reflect the
release and use of ACVC 2.0.1 during the transition period when compiler
vendors will incorporate the features provided by the revised Ada
language standard, ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995 and FIPS 119-1. The transition
period is from February 1995, when Ada 95 was published as an approved
standard, until March 31, 1997, when the Ada 95 Ada Compiler Validation
Capability (ACVC) version 2.1 is required for use in the validation
process. During the transition period, two (2) ACVC versions will be
"current" versions used for validation testing - ACVC 1.11 for Ada 83 and
ACVC 2.0.1 for Ada 95. During the transition period compiler vendors may
choose to earn a certificate for either Ada 83 or Ada 95. The mandatory
criteria for obtaining an Ada 95 certificate using ACVC 2.0.1 require the
passing all applicable Ada 9X Basic tests and either all "OOP" or all
"real-time" tests. ACVC 2.0.1 is in use from March 31, 1996 until March
31, 1997. Certificates issued for compilers tested with ACVC 1.11 or
2.0.1 will expire March 31, 1998. ACVC 2.1 will be available for public
review three months before it becomes the official Ada 95 ACVC version on
March 31, 1997.
Certification System
The NIST has the responsibility for establishing and maintaining a
certification system for the Federal Information Processing Standards
(FIPS).
Ada Compiler Validation Capability (ACVC)
An Ada implementation passes a given ACVC version if it processes each
test of the customized ACVC version according to grading criteria for
individual tests and the test result profile matches the passing
requirement for a specific ACVC version. During the transition
period, there are three exceptions to previous procedures for
establishing the applicability of ACVC test programs. These exceptions
are:
b. For an Ada 95 validation with ACVC version 2.0.1, the mandatory
criteria for obtaining a certificate is that all applicable Ada 9X
Basic tests must be passed and either all tests labeled "OOP" or
all tests labeled "real-time" must be passed. The Ada 9X Basic
tests, OOP tests, and real-time tests are identified in the ACVC
Version 2.0.1 User's Guide.
For Ada 95 validations, ACVC test programs for Specialized Needs Annexes
will not be processed unless the AVF customer requests that they be
processed. The result of these tests will not affect the issuance of a
certificate for the core language.
Validation Testing
b. Prevalidation is completed (see Section 5.2).
c. Validation testing is performed by an AVF at a mutually agreed
upon site. That is, the AVF performs an on-site witness testing
(see Section 5.3).
d. A Declaration of Conformance is completed and signed by the
customer not later than at the on-site AVF validation testing. A
validation certificate will not be issued until a Declaration of
Conformance has been completed (see Section 5.4 and Appendix A).
e. A VSR is completed by the AVF to document the validation by
testing (see Section 5.5).
f. The NIST issues a validation certificate for a successfully
tested Ada implementation (see Section 5.6).
An Ada implementation that fails one (1) to ten (10) ACVC test programs
will not receive a Validation Certificate but will receive a Registered
Validation Summary Report (RVSR). That RVSR has an expiry date of not
more than 12 months after completion of on-site testing, by which date
the failing Ada implementation must be retested by the AVF and must pass
the ACVC to obtain a validation certificate (See Section 5.7.) Ada
compilers that receive a RVSR will be listed separately from those Ada
compilers with a Validation Certificate in the NIST Validated Products
List. Ada compilers which earn a RVSR receive a Provisional Validation
Status (PVS).
Registration of a Derived Ada Implementation
Appendices
1. Introduction
Effective October 1, 1996, the NIST operates the Ada certification
system.
The Ada certification system rules of procedure and management in this
document address the validation of Ada implementations by testing and by
registration. These rules form an operational description of a
validated Ada compiler. This version 4.2 addresses the validation
process during the transition from [Ada 83] to [Ada 95]. Where the
validation procedures for transition differ from past procedures, these
differences are explained in appropriate sections. These procedures
(version 4.2) will be updated before the end of the transition period,
March 31, 1997.
The principals of the certification body of the Ada certification system
consist of the NIST for overall direction, the Test Method Control
Committee (TMCC) for guidance to NIST from industry on Ada conformance
testing issues, and the Ada Validation Facilities (AVFs) for
performing validations. The NIST is responsible for establishing and
maintaining a certification system for the Federal Information
Programming Standards (FIPS), FIPS 119 (for Ada 83), and FIPS 119-1 (for
Ada 95).
It is important to note the scope and intent of validation. Users of an
Ada implementation are cautioned that the purpose of validation is to
encourage conformity of Ada implementations with the standard and that
characteristics other than those specified by the standard, such as
performance or suitability for a particular application, are outside the
scope of Ada validation. Moreover, users are cautioned that the
yardstick of conformity testing is the collection of test programs
contained in the ACVC. Thus, conformity is measured only within the
limitations of these tests.
A glossary of terms used in this document is provided in Section 2.
Terms defined in the glossary are signified in the body of the document
by bold print. Appendices to this document provide examples of documents
used in validation, a description of the test dispute and resolution
process, current points of contacts, and references.
3. Organizations and Responsibilities
3.1 National Institute of Standards (NIST)
b. establishing the conditions for issuance, the life, and the
scope of a validation certificate;
c. establishing the schedule for issuing versions of the ACVC;
d. approving the release of an ACVC version;
e. establishing members of the TMCC;
f. resolving issues that may arise during validation when these
issues cannot be resolved through the best efforts of the AVF;
g. maintaining the official list of validated Ada implementations;
h. advising the AVFs concerning requirements for modification to
the validation procedures;
i. reviewing all validation summary reports (VSRs) prepared by
AVFs;
j. the issuance of validation certificates for Ada implementations
validated by testing (see Section 5) and the registration of
derived implementations (see Section 6);
k. overseeing the ACVC quality control and configuration
management process;
l. deciding on the withdrawal of test programs from the ACVC
version that is being used for validation; and
m. convening meetings of the members of the TMCC at appropriate
intervals to discuss the process and to evaluate practices.
3.2 Ada Validation Facilities (AVFs)
b. producing the VSR;
c. forwarding unresolved test issues to the NIST for review and
analysis, with final resolution to be provided by the NIST, if
necessary;
d. providing advice on a customer's registration request for a
derived Ada implementation; and
e. striving to satisfy national accreditation criteria.
The NIST may issue an AVF charter to an organization that has been
recognized as an accredited testing laboratory by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The
NIST may issue a charter to an organization located in a country that
has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the U.S. government
covering the chartering of AVFs, according to the rules specified in the
MoU. An AVF charter shall remain in effect for the duration specified in
the charter; however, a charter can be revoked by the NIST, at any time,
for due cause. The NIST may direct an impartial body to conduct an
audit at any time or prior to issuing an AVF charter. Audits are
conducted in accordance with procedures established by the NIST at the
time of the audit and are tailored to reflect the purpose of the audit.
3.3 ACVC Reviewers
b. providing expert technical review of the test objectives and
test programs during their development;
c. ensuring that advances in the interpretation of the Ada
programming language are reflected appropriately in the test
objectives and test programs;
d. providing liaison between the certification system and the ISO
Working Group for the Ada Standard (i.e. ISO-IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG9);
e. reviewing and acting upon comments received from compiler
vendors and other interested parties; and,
f. establishing the configuration baseline for a proposed change
to an ACVC version.
The functions provided by this group will be provided by the NIST TMCC.
3.4 Fast-Reaction Team (FRT)
b. contributing to ISO Working Group 9 language issue resolution.
The functions provided by this group are assigned to the NIST TMCC.
3.5 Customers
3.6 NIST TMCC
b. the TMCC technical activity which advises the NIST on matters
relating to the test suite maintenance and enhancement, and in the
resolution of technical issues arising from validation testing.
The NIST wants active members for its TMCC who will regularly
participate in discussions related to Ada issues. The NIST is
responsible for establishing and maintaining the membership of the TMCC.
All matters to be resolved by the TMCC shall be determined by consensus
with the understanding that the TMCC serves in an advisory capacity to
the NIST. It is expected that most TMCC matters will be resolved by
correspondence (e.g. electronic mail) rather than by meetings requiring
the physical presence of the TMCC members in one location.
4. The Ada Compiler Validation Capability
4.1 Versions
Ada validation related questions or comments on test objectives, or test
programs should be submitted by e-mail to
4.2 Applicability of ACVC Test Programs
During the transition period, there are three exceptions to previous
criteria for passing an ACVC version. These exceptions are:
b. For an [Ada 95] validation with ACVC version 2.0.1 all
applicable Ada 9X Basic tests and either all tests labeled as
"OOP" or all tests labeled "real-time" must be passed. (The
ACVC 9X Basic tests, "OOP" tests, and "real-time" tests are identified
in the ACVC version 2.0.1 User's Guide.)
For [Ada 95] validations, ACVC test programs for special needs annexes
will not be processed unless the AVF customer requests that they be
processed. The result of these tests will not affect the issuance of a
certificate for the core language but shall be made available as part of
the public record of the Ada validation effort.
4.3 Test Modifications
In addition to the anticipated test modifications, other changes may be
required in order to remove conflicts between a test program and
implementation-dependent characteristics (e.g., the algorithm for
recovering from syntax errors). The allowable changes for each Ada
implementation are determined by an AVF after consultation with the
NIST, except in the case of error-recovery problems which an AVF may
address without consultation.
4.4 Test Withdrawal
4.5 Customization
4.6 Availability
For those with a modem and NO World Wide Web browser:
[Note: The Ada test suite files are in UNIX tar format and are
compressed (.Z) and therefore require the UNIX utility, compress, to
uncompress them. When possible, the files will be available in DOS
compressed format. Always read the README file.]
5. Validation by Testing
5.1 Step One: Validation Agreement
b. a statement of work, including analysis of prevalidation
testing, validation, and preparation of the VSR;
c. the format of data to be exchanged;
d. a schedule of events and the site of validation;
e. financial arrangements;
f. retention of records;
g. AVF liability; and
h. confidentiality of validation information.
The schedule for events, deliverables, and payments should take into
account the fact that certain steps in the validation process require
interaction with other members of the certification body (e.g., NIST).
The AVF will put forth its best effort to keep confidential a customer's
intent to obtain a validation certificate and the projected schedule for
validation. This confidentiality will not be allowed to interfere with
the normal review procedures of validation. If the customer requests
confidentiality for reasons of national security or procurement
sensitivity, the customer will provide to the AVF an official, written
statement describing the request and the reason(s) for the request. The
AVF will obtain further guidance from the NIST.
5.2 Step Two: Prevalidation
5.2.1 Customer Testing
After entering into a formal agreement, the customer prepares a
customized test suite. The customer then processes all the tests in this
customized test suite using the candidate Ada implementation or another
Ada implementation that produces the same result. If the implementation
provides for options in the way programs are processed, then the same
set of options must be chosen for all test programs, with the possible
exception of an option controlling the production of information output.
Any other exception constitutes a test issue that must be resolved with
the AVF (see Section 5.2.5). Test issues should be sent to the AVF for
analysis as soon as they are known. The customer must provide (unless
explicitly waived by the AVF) the prevalidation materials in a timely
manner or by the agreement requirements between the customer and the
AVF. Prevalidation materials include as a minimum the processing of an
appropriately customized test suite by the customer, a customer supplied
Declaration of Conformance, and any disputed ACVC tests.
5.2.2 Submission of Results
Upon completion of testing, the customer delivers the complete set of
results in the agreed format to the AVF. These results are accompanied
by the following information:
b. a list of test programs that are disputed (see Section 4.4)
together with rationale (see Appendix B for format);
c. the necessary information for the AVF to prepare the customized
test suite;
d. an annotated sample command script;
e. the complete set of option settings used for processing the
customized test suite, including the default settings; and
f. complete and current documentation for implementation-dependent
characteristics as required in Appendix F of [Ada 83] or Annex M of
[Ada 95].
5.2.3 Test Modifications
In order to comply with the test objective it maybe required to modify
the test source code, the test processing method, or the test evaluation
method. Modifications are allowable because at the time of test writing
not all possible execution environments of the test and the capabilities
of the compiler could be foreseen. Only NIST shall make the decision to
use any of the following Test Modification. Possible kinds of
modification are:
5.2.4 Test Issues
A test issue may be any of the following:
b. a result presented in an inadequate form;
c. a disagreement between the customer and the AVF as to the
interpretation of a result;
d. a change in the choice of options to be used during testing;
e. a result that makes the Ada implementation fail the ACVC
according to the current grading criteria; or
f. an implementation-dependent characteristic that may affect
the conformity of the Ada implementation.
The material submitted by the customer is analyzed by the AVF and
test issues are resolved. If the AVF and the customer cannot agree on a
way to resolve a test issue, the issue will be referred to the NIST for
a resolution (see Section 5.2.5). It may be justified to leave a test
issue unresolved at prevalidation. For example, it may be impossible to
check the processing of control characters by inspecting printed
results. The AVF will note these unresolved issues and describe the
results that will be expected during validation testing. It is also
possible that the customer information provided for production of the
customized test suite (see Section 5.2.1) was insufficient so that
corrections to the customized test suite must be made and additional
processing will be required.
5.2.5 Test Issue Resolution
A customer may challenge the applicability or correctness of any
particular ACVC test program. Such challenges should be presented to
the AVF in the test-dispute format (see Appendix B). The AVF will
forward challenges to the NIST for resolution; the NIST will strive
to rule on the challenge within two weeks of receiving it. The NIST
will forward all challenges and rulings to the NIST TMCC. (See Appendix
C for a description of the Test Dispute and Resolution Process.)
5.2.6 Grading Rules for Representation Clause Tests
The NIST grading rules for representation clause tests (Annexes C and D)
for ACVC Version 2.0.1 are:
b. For core validation, the representation clause tests that are
rejected by the implementation prior to execution are graded as
"Unsupported". The results are reported in the Validation Summary
Report or the Registered Validation Summary Report or the
Validation Certificate for information only.
c. For core validation, the representation clause tests that fail
in execution are graded as “Failed” (unless judged inapplicable
by the test dispute process). Such a test failure is graded as a
failure for the core validation.
5.2.7 Incomplete Prevalidations
The AVF and the customer may agree that, at the customer's risk, parts
of the customized test suite need not be processed. The customer must
certify that the results from a previous prevalidation submitted to the
AVF or validation results obtained by the AVF are identical to those
that would have been obtained by the customer. The normal practice is
to submit complete prevalidation results.
5.2.8 Successful Prevalidation
Prevalidation testing is successful if the analysis of results and the
resolution of test issues show that the candidate Ada implementation
passes the customized test suite. Prevalidation is successful with
caveats if the results are satisfactory except that they were incomplete
or if resolution of some test issues is deferred until validation
testing by agreement between the AVF and the customer.
5.3 Step Three: Validation Testing
5.4 Step Four: Declaration of Conformance
5.5 Step Five: Validation Summary Report (VSR)
b. identification of the organization responsible for the
production, maintenance, or distribution of the Ada compiler or
Ada implementation;
c. identification of the Ada implementation tested;
d. identification of the options used for testing;
e. the inapplicable test programs and implementation-dependent
characteristics exhibited by the test programs that established
inapplicability;
f. the implementation-dependent characteristics pertinent to the
customized test suite;
g. for [Ada 83] validations, description of implementation-
dependent characteristics as detailed by Appendix F of [Ada 83].
implementation-dependent characteristics detailed by Annex M of
[Ada 95] should be provided in vendor documentation for users but
need not be provided in a VSR in the same format and detail called
for in Annex M;
h. the test programs graded as unsupported under the transition
policy of not requiring that certain [Ada 95] tests be passed;
i. withdrawn test programs;
j. modifications to test programs with an explanation for such
modifications; and
k. a description of failed test programs, if applicable. (See
Provisional Validation, Section 5.7.)
5.5.1 VSR Production
The VSR is prepared by the AVF but includes material that is produced by
the customer, such as Appendix F required by [Ada 83], Annex M required
by [Ada 95], or the documented compiler and linker options. A draft of
the VSR is sent to the NIST for approval before and always after
validation testing. The final version of the VSR is signed by the AVF
and the NIST.
5.5.2 VSR Availability
The final version of the VSR is available to the general public from the
customer and from the AVF that produced it. The AVF may require payment
of a fee for VSR reproduction and mailing costs. The VSR is available
on-line whenever possible (see APPENDIX E. POINTS OF CONTACT). There is
no cost for VSRs obtained by electronic means.
5.6 Step Six: Validation Certificate
Validation certificates for ACVC 1.11, for ACVC 2.0 and for ACVC 2.0.1
will expire March 31, 1998. An entry in the list of Ada implementations
validated by testing will be made for each certificate issued. This
entry and all entries for registered validations derived from it will be
removed when the certificate expires or is removed.
A sample Certificate of Validation is provided in Appendix G.
5.7 Provisional Validation
5.8 Advertising Validated Status
6. Registration of Derived Implementations
For any base implementation with a current validation certificate, a
derived implementation may obtain validated status by registration when
it satisfies all of the following conditions:
b. The target machine of the base and derived implementation have
compatible instruction sets and operating system or kernel.
c. The result profile for the derived implementation is either the
same as the base implementation or, if there are differences,
these differences are justified as being within the scope of
accepted software maintenance practices.
The changes that may be made to an Ada compiler for the purpose of
derivation will be within the scope of software maintenance as applied
to the domain of compiler construction. Changes must be classified as
corrective, adaptive, or perfective. Examples of these changes
are the correction of a compiler error, the adaption to an operating
system upgrade, the transfer of the compiler to another host machine,
the addition of a floating point processor to a small target machine, or
the perfection of a garbage collection algorithm.
For the purposes of obtaining validated status by registration, the
changes required to render the base Ada compiler fully functional on a
different host machine or host operating system are considered adaptive
maintenance. However, a change in a target machine may be outside the
scope of acceptable maintenance.
For a target machine, common examples of compatible instruction sets and
operating systems are two different computer system models in a
manufacturer's product line or the computer systems produced by
different manufacturers that use the same instruction set and operating
systems, or any computer system and a simulated or emulated computer
system that are the same instruction set.
6.1 Registration Request
A registration request must contain descriptions of the base and derived
implementations, a declaration of conformity to the relevant version of
the Ada programming language, compliance with the relevant version of
the ACVC, a description of what maintenance and testing was performed,
and any appropriate supporting documentation from hardware or software
vendors. If any party in addition to the one submitting the request has
a legal interest in the derived implementation, this interest will also
be documented in the request.
Two Ada implementations have the same result profile when:
b. their output from processing the customized test suite is the
same (with the possible exception of the precise content and
position of error messages from the compiler).
If the derived implementation has a different result profile than the
base implementation, the registration request must describe and justify
the differences.
6.2 Evaluation
6.3 Registration
6.4 Expiration of Validated Status
6.5 Challenges
b. names one ACVC test from the customized test suite together
with its implementation dependent parameters, if any; and
c. describes in what way the implementation will fail this test.
The AVF will send this challenge to the originator of the registration
asking for comment. The challenge will be considered settled if the
registration is revoked by the registration originator; otherwise, the
challenge will be settled as outlined in Section 6.7.
6.6 Challenge Mark
6.7 Challenge Test
Appendix A. Declaration of Conformance
Customer:
Declaration:
A2 - Ada 83 Transitioning
Declaration:
A3 - Ada 95
Declaration:
Appendix B. Implementer Dispute Format
Part A
(Part A will be completed once by each implementer; part B will be
completed for each dispute. It is not necessary for a pre-validation
date to have been established. Part A information is treated as
confidential.)
Part B
[In this Discussion, arguments should be specified using test line #s
and references to pertinent sections of the Ada standard or Commentaries
(Al-xxxx). The implementer must describe the behavior of the
implementation for the test or tests that are disputed, stating the
particular test messages that are produced. It is sufficient for the
detailed description to be limited to the particular segment of test
code that is disputed. Relevant source code with compiler messages
should be included. (For a group of tests that cause much the same
behavior, it is sufficient for a detailed description to be given for
one of them, with the relevant line numbers given for the like problems
in the related tests.)]
If the argument depends upon implementation constraints of hardware or
software (e.g., characteristics of the operating system), then these
should be specified; the particular computer and operating system should
be identified. It is especially important that implementations that
fail to pass some test due to capacity limitations be described in
enough detail for the NIST to assess the reasonableness of these
limitations.
Failure to fully specify the points pertinent to a dispute might result
in an adverse decision being made, with the disputer having to further
argue the case with a second submittal to the NIST. Yet it is possible
that the Summary will suffice to adequately present a dispute.
Appendix C. Test Dispute and Resolution Process
C.1 Introduction
C.2 Expedited Resolution Process
On receipt of a dispute, the NIST checks whether the issue matches any
that had been previously resolved. If the dispute is new, it is given
an initial NIST analysis which involves research using the Ada
commentaries in conjunction with the Ada standard and references to
previous dispute deliberations. A dispute is referred to the NIST TMCC
when questions of interpretation arise and a resolution is not obvious.
The NIST presents the dispute and any additional information resulting
from an initial analysis to the NIST TMCC by e-mail without disclosing
the identity of the petitioner. Deliberation of the dispute proceeds
with the exchange of each expert's opinion and analysis. The NIST
participates in the deliberation by providing information as requested
(e.g., ACVC tests or information from the petitioner), eliciting
discussion from the experts, and making or challenging technical points
raised in the discussion. In general, where an issue receives support
from some members of the NIST TMCC, the dispute is accepted.
There is no prescribed formality to the NIST TMCC deliberations, such as
voting procedures or time limits on deliberation. The NIST might extend
deliberation when a basis for resolving the dispute has not been made.
However, the NIST will give its ruling on the dispute when a sufficient
basis has been established, regardless of whether the NIST TMCC
discussion continues.
C.3 Types of Resolutions
There are three types of test modification: Test, Processing, and
Evaluation modifications. A Test Modification is an actual change to the
code of the test (e.g., adding a choice to an exception handler). A
Processing Modification is a change to the way in which the test is
processed (e.g., re-ordering the compilation of component files of a
multi-compilation test). And an Evaluation Modification is simply the
grading of the observed results by other than the established grading
criteria (e.g., interpreting particular intermediate output and a final
"failed" result as "passed", according to an understanding of the
dispute). All test modifications are documented in the VSR.
C.4 Summary
Appendix D. Registration Request
Part I - Letter
b. List of derived implementations that were fully tested with the
customized ACVC used in the base validation. If this list is less
than the list for which registration is requested item d must also
be included in this letter.
c. Select the appropriate statement to declare conformity:
2. Ada 83 migrating compiler: I, the undersigned, declare
that I have no knowledge of deliberate deviations from the
Ada Language Standard [ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A/ISO 8652:1987/FIPS
119] other than modifications necessary to incorporate some
features of ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995 untested by a validation.
Any non-conforming characteristics are due to implementation
errors.
3. ISO 95 compiler: I, the undersigned, declare that I have
no knowledge of deliberate deviations from the Ada Language
Standard [ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995, FIPS 119-1] other than the
omission of features documented in the Validation Summary
Report for the base implementation.
d. For the derived implementations that were not fully tested, we
declare that, to the best of our knowledge, these implementations
will pass the customized ACVC used in the base validation. Any
possibly observed deviations are the consequence of implementation
errors.
e. If this statement applies, legal interests of (name) are
affected by this registration request and their consent is
documented in enclosure (number) to this letter.
f. The Ada implementations for which registration is requested
may, in fact, be derived according to the rules given in the Ada
Validation Procedures.
g. Signature
h. Corporate title
Note: This registration request pertains to all Ada implementations
obtained by taking the Ada compiler and selecting any host and any
target from the list below.
Compiler: name and version(s), release number/product(s), range of versions/releases
Host: choose either (a) or (b) --
Operating System: name and version, release number(s)
Target: choose (a) or (b) or (c) --
Operating System: choose (a) or (b) or (c) --
Evidence that the Ada implementations listed above should be validated
by registration:
2. Which host/target combinations were fully tested with the ACVC?
Testing with "customer applications" or other types of tests
is not equivalent to running the ACVC. If a sub-set of ACVC
tests were run, so state and indicate the sub-set.
3. State whether the result profile is the same or different from
the base. If different, list all ACVC test results that are
different or exhibit different behavior and explain the
difference.
4. What is the authoritative source used to determine the
technical compatibility between the derived implementations and
the base?
If copies of technical manuals are supplied as the source of this
information, give the enclosure number where this information can be
found. Do not duplicate a previous submission of identical technical
material, just reference its previous submission. If there has been a
change in the previously submitted material, submit only the change. If
there is no authoritative source of information given, this registration
request may be refused.
Appendix E. Points of Contact
Mr. Jon Leigh
Mr. Michael Tonndorf
ACVC Team (Ada 95)
Mr. L. Arnold Johnson
Test Method Control Committee (TMCC)
Contact Dr. William H. Dashiell (see above) email comments and/or ACVC dispute issues to ada-comment@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
Ada Rapporteur Group (ISOWG9)
Ada Information Clearinghouse (industry and government inquiries)
Express mail:
Ada Validation Related Questions
ACVC and VSR Distribution
[Note: The Ada test suite files are in UNIX tar format and are
compressed (.Z) and therefore require the UNIX utility, compress, to
uncompress them. When possible, the files will be available in DOS
compressed format. Always read the README file.]
Validated Compiler Lists
Online:
Appendix F. References
Appendix G. Sample Certificate of Validation
(Not included in this ASCII text document.)
ada-comment@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
or by mail:
Dr. William H. Dashiell
NIST
Building 820NN, Room 517,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 USA
Email:
dashiell@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
Fax: 301/948-6213
Type: ftp speckle.ncsl.nist.gov (Internet address is 129.6.59.74)
Login as user: ftp
Password: (type your email address)
Type: cd ada-testing/test-suites/ACVC201
Type: binary
Type: get
Declaration of Conformance
Certificate Awardee:
Ada Validation Facility:
ACVC Version:
Ada Implementation:
Ada Compiler Name and Version:
Host Computer System:
Target Computer System:
______________________________ __________
Customer Signature / Date
Company
Title
______________________________ __________
Certificate Awardee Signature / Date
Company
Title
Declaration of Conformance
Certificate Awardee:
Ada Validation Facility:
ACVC Version:
Ada Implementation:
Ada Compiler Name and Version:
Host Computer System:
Target Computer System:
______________________________ __________
Customer Signature / Date
Company
Title
______________________________ __________
Certificate Awardee Signature / Date
Company
Title
Declaration of Conformance
Certificate Awardee:
Ada Validation Facility:
ACVC Version:
Ada Implementation:
Ada Compiler Name and Version:
Host Computer System:
Target Computer System:
______________________________ __________
Customer Signature / Date
Company
Title
______________________________ __________
Certificate Awardee Signature / Date
Company
Title
Configuration: (host & target hardware & operating systems)
ACVC Version:
Pre-Validation Submittal Date: (due date for in-house results)
Summary: (brief description of the dispute)
Discussion: (detailed description of the dispute)
2. Registration requested for:
OR
b. all members of a model series (e.g. IBM PS2 all models, or HP 9000 series 300)
OR
b. all members of a model series
OR
c. members of an instruction set architecture and board implementation(s) (e.g. Motorola 68020-MVME133-1 & MVME130COF, Motorola 68030-VME147, Motorola 68030-MilSpec285)
OR
b. kernel identifier for all target machines listed
OR
c. none for all target machines listed
Dr. William Dashiell
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Information Technology Laboratory (ITL)
Building 820NN, Room 517
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
Phone: 301-975-2490
Fax: 301-948-6213
Email:
dashiell@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
The National Computing Centre, Ltd.
Oxford Road
Manchester
England, MI7ED
Phone: +44-61-228-6333
Email: jon@ncc.co.uk
IABG, Software-Technologie lTE
Einsteinstr. 20
D-85521 0ttobrunn
Germany
Phone: +49-89-6088-2477
Email: tonndorf@iabg.de
ACVC95 (Test Suite Development/Maintenance)
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Information Technology Laboratory (ITL)
Building 820NN, Room 517
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
Phone: 301-975-3247
Email: johnson@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
Dr. Erhard Ploedereder
University of Stuttgart
Institute for Computer Science
Breitwiesenstr. 20-22
D-70565 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone: +49 +711 7816-322
Fax: +49 +711 7816-380
Email: ploedere@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
Ms. Susan Carlson
Standard mail:
AdaIC
PO Box 1866
Falls Church, VA 22041 USA
Phone: 703/681-2466
Fax: 703/681-2869
Email: adainfo@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us
WWW URL: http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/
c/o IIT Research Institute
4409 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706-4312 USA
Email: ada-comment@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
OR
by post to Dr. William H. Dashiell (see above).
Contact Dr. William H. Dashiell (see above)
OR
to obtain ACVC by ftp:
Type: ftp speckle.ncsl.nist.gov (Internet address is 129.6.59.74)
Login as user: ftp
Password: (type your email address)
Type: cd ada-testing/test-suites/ACVC201
Type: binary
Type: get file_name
Mr. L. Arnold Johnson
Standard mail:
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Information Technology Laboratory (ITL)
Building 820NN, Room 517
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
Phone: 301/975-2490
Fax: 301/948-6213
Email: johnson@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov
WWW URL: ftp://speckle.ncsl.nist.gov/vpl/intro.htm
[Ada 95]
ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995 Reference Manual for the Ada Programming Language, February 1995 (supersedes Ada 83] [Ada 83]
American National Standards Institute and United States Department of Defense: ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A Reference Manual for The Ada Programming Language, 1983 Note: This standard is identical with ISO/8652:1987 and FIPS 119, 1985. [ANSI/IEEE 90]
American National Standards Institute / Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., Standard 610.12-1990; "ANSI/IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology". [FIPS]
Federal Information Processing Standards publications relative to the Ada Programming Language are FIPS 119 and FIPS 119-1 [ISO 74]
International Standards Organization: ISO 2382/I-1974 Data Processing - Vocabulary - Section 01: Fundamental Terms. [ISO/IEC 91]
International Standards Organization: ISO/IEC, Guide 2, 6th edition 1991 - General Terms and Their Definitions Concerning Standardization and Related Activities.
Home
Webmaster
Last Updated: 08/11/98