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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,98ad5b2a2cd88a53 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,98ad5b2a2cd88a53 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Hubert B. Keller" Subject: Re: Ada or C++ acting 'correctly' here? Date: 1999/03/01 Message-ID: <36DAF21B.3BD38C9B@iai.fzk.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 450077841 Distribution: world Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7b8c7u$sj1@drn.newsguy.com> X-Accept-Language: de,en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1999-03-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: William McKenzie wrote: > With -W3, always a good idea, microsoft will give you an 'integral constant > overflow' message on the expression. With -WX -W3 you could even say it > behaves as well as the ADA compiler. > Is it a question of defined semantics of programming language constructs or more a question of compiler statements and how can i decide how a program was compiled and behaves using it later as an existing module (and searching for errors)? I believe it should be a question of clearly defined semantics - so i'm using Ada. H. Keller