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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.50.97.98 with SMTP id dz2mr17784118igb.7.1454828886021; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 23:08:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.153.36 with SMTP id vd4mr376035obb.10.1454828885960; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 23:08:05 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!hb3no1619264igb.0!news-out.google.com!kr2ni8933igb.0!nntp.google.com!o2no2819063iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 23:08:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:1205:c690:5a50:889:ceea:58cf:97d; posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:1205:c690:5a50:889:ceea:58cf:97d References: <02241ec4-0f95-4f63-9abc-092f167eb59e@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1bffb720-edf9-451f-94a1-84a8f21bc980@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada package registry? From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:08:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29388 Date: 2016-02-06T23:08:05-08:00 List-Id: Le samedi 6 f=E9vrier 2016 02:25:59 UTC+1, Randy Brukardt a =E9crit=A0: > [What I mean by expressing assumptions is that it's unlikely that any rea= l=20 > Ada code would really run anywhere. I've been having fun with Gautier ove= r=20 > his "unconditional portability" claim, as one only needs a single=20 > counter-example to disprove the claim. After a few obvious problems with = the=20 > choices of Janus/Ada were worked out, I pointed out that his types wouldn= 't=20 > work on our old U2200 compiler (as that was a 1's completement, 36-bit=20 > machine). He decided quite reasonably not to worry about that, but that= =20 > means in his case, that means his code is "unconditionally portable" so l= ong=20 > as your target supports 32-bit integers and is 2's complement. That might= be=20 > 99% of machines, but its not quite unconditional.] Actually I do worry - well, a bit: don't worry that I'm worrying too much! It's why I've mitigated the "unconditional portability" claim with "within = limits of compiler's provided integer types and target architecture capacit= y". Note that I don't claim "unlimited portability". Only, within limits that are target machine's and compiler supported intege= r types, there is no need of conditional compilation, preprocessing, #ifdef= 's and other tricks to fake portability. I test some of my libraries with both GNAT (most recent GPL) and ObjectAda = 7.2.2 (an old, free version). It's very rewarding to punch the build button on both IDEs and get somethin= g working (be it Zip, image or PDF tool) with exactly the same source set. Moreover, both compilers issue warnings or in very rare cases, errors, that= the other doesn't. You also see that a claim like "our software is an Ada 95 compiler" is perh= aps met by nobody so far in 2016 if you take the Manual stricto sensu. This includes the Interpretations of the Manual: if a warning or an error i= s issued, it makes a difference... _________________________=20 Gautier's Ada programming=20 http://sf.net/users/gdemont/