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: 103376,63ceef1cf4561e32
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Kieran Mckey <kieran.mckey@baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: Customer balks at Ada -- any hope?--Warning Significant Thread
 Drift  Ahead
Date: 2000/07/20
Message-ID: <3976C1D0.5A3CECEB@baesystems.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 648539443
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8l01s4$gnr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8l2pqo$im7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <5dtGPVPqfHh5@eisner.decus.org> <39755FB0.81586D45@baesystems.com>
 <8l5lhf$nem$1@pyrite.mv.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 20 Jul 2000 10:06:54 GMT, rc2954.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Jeff Creem wrote:
> 
> "Kieran Mckey" <kieran.mckey@baesystems.com> wrote in message
> 
> > enabled or not. Furthermore, run-time checks are required for exception
> > handling which can provide valuable diagnostic data. IMO too many
> 
> Apart from everything else you said, the above statement is not exactly
> correct. You can suppress checks and still get exception handling for
> explicitly raised exceptions

Agreed.

> as well as those exceptions which are "free".

By "free" I assume you mean processor exceptions, e.g. divide by zero,
which are not the same as Ada exceptions.

> Granted the meaning of the latter is compiler and target specific but there
> is a big difference between suppressing automatic run time checks and loosing
> exception handling all together...

Ok, a quick reword gives : 

run-time checks are required for Ada exception handling, excluding
explicitly raised exceptions.

Kieran Mckey