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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!fred
From: fred@cs.utexas.edu (Fred Hosch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: is this a bug of my Ada compiler
Message-ID: <3577@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 88 20:02:52 GMT
References: <243@cui.UUCP> <7324@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7324@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

> Since the constant K is never subsequently used, the compiler
> has probably optimised your code and deleted both K and the
> initial assignment to it.  That is legitimate [RM 11.6 (7)],
> but I confess I'd rather have had a compile-time warning.
> 
It's not clear to me that LRM 11.6(7) permits the compiler to optimize
away the declaration elaboration.  If K were a variable subsequently
assigned, the "predefined operation" of assignment "need not be invoked."
I think a CONSTRAINT_ERROR or NUMERIC_ERROR is required to be raised
in this case?

		---fred hosch
		fred@cs.utexas.edu