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: 103376,24411eb4ff030f6c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aschwarz@acm.org (skidmarks) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Semantics of Inline vs non-Inline Date: 21 Oct 2004 17:46:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <35f054ea.0410211646.6e9fd569@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.46.200.231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1098406002 22605 127.0.0.1 (22 Oct 2004 00:46:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5607 Date: 2004-10-21T17:46:42-07:00 List-Id: "Christoph Karl Walter Grein" wrote in message news:... > Only if it didn't, you have a point against your compiler vendor and should push his nose to > this pragraph. Two points: 1. A warning message was issued stating that a 'null' value would be substituted for the input address, and 2. At run-time, the error was caught with Windows not Ada. here has been mention that for the case at point, the compiler is not correct (both 1. and 2. are erroneous) and also that the compiler is correct (1. is correct and 2. is erroneous). For respondents not literate in the LRM but, nonetheless trying to produce a product, the feeling is that 1. and 2. are erroneous. This includes myself. art