From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4eca860272d4832b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Adam Beneschan" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly? Date: 7 Feb 2007 10:55:45 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1170874545.463017.180430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> References: <12shen4qjhv41a7@corp.supernews.com> <1170792077.235994.10900@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87d54mguco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1170843700.7656.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1170866664.465875.309930@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1170874559 10836 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2007 18:55:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:55:59 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9085 Date: 2007-02-07T10:55:45-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 7, 10:27 am, "Jeffrey R. Carter" wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Yes, it does make a difference. It appears that I'm using version > > 4.0.0. When I use -gnato, I get the correct results; when I use - > > gnatp, or no flag, I get incorrect results (Text_IO displays values > > greater than 63, same as what Matt was seeing). > > This is a known issue. GNAT is not Ada without -gnato and -fstack-check. Seems like a pretty lame excuse, though. Ada does have a Suppress pragma to suppress checks; as I understand the documentation, omitting -gnato causes certain checks not to be performed, and using -gnatp causes even more checks not to be performed, so the result should be more or less equivalent to using Suppress. So it probably isn't accurate to say that GNAT isn't Ada in that case, but that's perhaps a matter of semantics. In any case, though, using Suppress, or not using -gnato, or using -gnatp, shouldn't produce *different* results. The most I would expect is that the behavior would be different in cases where an exception would be raised if the check were performed--- but I would not expect different behavior in a case where *no* exception is raised. And in this case, no exception is raised---the Put is outputting different values. So I still think this is a bug that needs to be fixed. The current behavior (assuming that 4.1.1-22 behaves the same as 4.0.0) isn't reasonable. -- Adam