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!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s71.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly?
References: <12shen4qjhv41a7@corp.supernews.com>
   <1170792077.235994.10900@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <HI6dnX9pKMXb1VTYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@comcast.com>
   <87d54mguco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <1170843700.7656.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>
   <1170866664.465875.309930@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
   <GSoyh.1178127$084.353645@attbi_s22>
   <1170874545.463017.180430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
   <truyh.261466$aJ.73533@attbi_s21>
 <1170897971.419567.78410@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1170897971.419567.78410@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <2cKyh.337215$FQ1.333812@attbi_s71>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s71 1170960254 12.201.97.213 (Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:44:14 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:44:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:44:14 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9155
Date: 2007-02-08T18:44:14+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> Hmmm.  This is certainly not the way I would expect a "perform this
> check" or "don't perform this check" flag to work.  To me, if the
> semantics of the language say that a value should be reduced by a
> modulus, then it should always be reduced regardless of what flags are
> present.  The only effect I'd expect a flag like this to have is in a
> case where performing a check would raise an exception; then not
> performing the check would have different behavior (possibly returning
> an out-of-range value or reading out-of-range memory or dying on an
> invalid memory access or something).  But I wouldn't expect any change
> in behavior in a case where no exception is raised even with checking
> turned on.

I understand your logic; I'm not even saying I disagree. But perhaps the 
compiler writer's view is that it's OK to store the larger value as long 
as the extra bits are never used. Then the error is in the I/O, which is 
using the extra bits.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it."
Annie Hall
42