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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9620bdab61f82e3b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Marin David Condic Subject: Re: Rep specs Date: 1999/06/03 Message-ID: <375692F7.42C07877@pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 485275929 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: condicma@bogon.pwfl.com References: <7iuqvu$lpp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Pratt & Whitney Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: diespammer@pwfl.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Rep specs (more properly rep clauses) are not required unless > you implement the Systems Programming Annex. That makes sense. > For the type of thing that needs rep clauses, that annex had > better be implemented. In fact virtually all compilers support > this on virtually all machines. An exception might be a compiler > targetting the JVM, where systems programming is not really > practical in any case. > O.K. Now you've got me confused. Chapter 13 clearly defines syntax for representation clauses, but allows for interpretation in an implementation defined manner. That would seem to "require" support for representation clauses, even if the level of support is questionable. I'd imagine the compiler would be required to parse the clause and at least say something to the effect of "I know you asked for this, but I can't give it to you, so you get this other thing instead..." At least you are warned that the representation is not possible with the given implementation. (I'd agree that a compiler which refused to comply with all rep clauses no matter how trivial, would be behaving rather silly, but isn't that still some form of support?) I'd agree that the issue is rather one of hair splitting and mostly irrelavent since representation clauses are generally fully supported. But wouldn't the issue arise again for things such as pragmas? "Yes I recognize your pragma, but no, I'm not going to do anything about it" is a valid form of support. Or am I wrong on this score? MDC -- Marin David Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic