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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ted Dennison Subject: Re: Zoo question Date: 1996/08/19 Message-ID: <32185FC3.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175088504 references: <320F16B6.6944@lmtas.lmco.com> <3210A142.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <3211C462.19D9@lmtas.lmco.com> <3212468B.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <321301EC.2C4D@lmtas.lmco.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-08-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Ken asks > > "Assuming no supresses, would there be a case where #1 would not apply (no > exception on assignment)?" > > No, the code you wrote MUST give an exception on the assignment. Any > speculation to the contrary is simply misinformed, any compiler that > does not raise the exception (assuming checks are turned on) is simply > broken, and it is a bug. That does seem to jibe with 5.2(3-4) in my Ada 83 LRM. However, I could have sworn I saw a rather long discussion here a year ago about compiler optimizations moving constraint checks out of loops. I suppose this is still possible, as long as there aren't any declare blocks (or is it?). -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |