Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!kth.se!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!grep!frank From: frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Formal definitions (Re: ada-c++ productivity) Message-ID: <1991Apr15.155435.3124@grep.co.uk> Date: 15 Apr 91 15:54:35 GMT References: <50419@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Reply-To: frank@grep.co.uk (Frank Wales) Organization: Grep Limited, LEEDS, UK Lines: 19 In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >This is correct. The Viper CPU is a relatively simple CPU design; it was >necessary to keep it so in order to make it validatable. I heard recently that the company that developed it is currently embroiled in legal action against the Ministry of Defence; something about making claims that implied it was more reliable than it really was, I think. >I think they are working on Viper II, which will be a slightly >more useful chip (i.e. one which you might actually want to build into >something more complicated than a toaster). Indeed. I remember reading the spec for Viper when it came out; I put it down again when I got to the part about how, if a run-time error was encountered, the processor dealt with it by halting. -- Frank Wales, Grep Limited, [frank@grep.co.uk<->uunet!grep!frank] Kirkfields Business Centre, Kirk Lane, LEEDS, UK, LS19 7LX. (+44) 532 500303