[progman]

I know that Ada compilers are 100% verified correct but is there really any validated C++ compiler? Which one?

AFAIK (partial) assurance in C/C++ can only be handled by additional testing tools, Frama-C for instance.

I agree that C/C++ should not be used for security applications. Ada is a much better choice because it was designed for security.

[lambdaelite]

Not sure if I'm understanding your question correctly, but Wind River claims their Diab compiler is validated by TÜV NORD and is has been used for stuff up to SIL4.

In fact, they (http://windriver.com/products/product-overviews/PO_Diab_Comp...) say:

  Diab Compiler has been a reliable code generation tool for
  avionics products certified for DO-178B, products for the
  nuclear market certified to IEC 60880, railway applications
  certified to EN 50128, and industrial products certified
  to IEC 61508, and is now qualified for use in automotive
  applications certified to ISO 26262.

Ada does have some built-in advantages, but I think my point still stands: the language is a small part of the entire SDLC, and I don't think it's the most important part.

[castell]

Is TÜV Nord/Sued known for extensive software checking?

[CHY872]

Are you sure that Ada compilers are verified correct?

I'm pretty sure that the only industrial formally verified compiler is CompCert (for C), though I could be wrong. The motivation for CompCert was certainly that Airbus wanted such a compiler.

Ada wouldn't be a better choice simply because it's designed for security. It'd be a better choice if it turned out better in practice. I've read some of the studies that have been done, and I haven't found them convincing.

Requiring additional tools just isn't a problem, if it works well. Don't criticise the process, criticise the result.