Re: "silly" (?) Ada semantics

[mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)]

In article <644579683.25696@minster.york.ac.uk> ken@SoftEng.UUCP (ken) writes:
>In article <1919@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>>constraint_error would be raised at execution time. What is the point
>>about the "silly" semantics: that the compiler should treat it as fatal?
>>Well, OK, maybe it should. As a teacher of compiler construction, I know
>>well that the question of what to treat as a fatal error is really a
>>matter of taste. Let's not turn this into a religious thing, OK?
>
>It's not a matter of taste for the _compiler vendor_. They _must_
>compile it because it is legal Ada! It's not the fact that the compiler
>spotted it - all Ada compilers I've seen spotted it! They all have to
>generate code, which always generates a constrant error.
>
You make a very good point! I think the group would benefit from hearing from
an authoritative voice on this issue. A vendor? An ARG member? Does the
current interpretation of the LRM indeed _require_ that a compilation
be completed in case of a guaranteed exception that the compiler detects?
If so, I'm sure there must be a good motivation for it, but it escapes me.
Would some important principle be violated if the compiler were to treat
a sure-to-be-raised exception as a fatal error (at least optionally?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Michael Feldman
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
+1-202-994-5253
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------