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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76dd26495a8f3b25 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-04 13:50:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!inmet!not-for-mail From: Tucker Taft Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Constant array declarations are not causing a compilation error when not fully initialized. Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:50:04 -0400 Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Message-ID: <3B953E7C.B85419A5@avercom.net> References: <3B8C2CA5.9D957ED@avercom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.24.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 999636604 3560 192.168.24.34 (4 Sep 2001 20:50:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Sep 2001 20:50:04 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12722 Date: 2001-09-04T20:50:04+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote: > > >how sophisticated such inevitable-run-time-error detection > >must be. In fact, Ada 95 goes further than Ada 83 in > >terms of specifying cases where inevitable-run-time-errors > >must be detected, but it clearly can't go all the way, > >as that would require the solution to the "halting" problem ;-). > Today's PC's CPU is nearly 1,000x as fast as the original. How much > of that typically goes into faster compilation (ie, bigger programs), > how much to more complex languages, and how much to increased > compile time analysis? It is true that more compile-time analysis could, and probably should, be performed by modern compilers. However, if you are asking about what analysis is *required* by the standard, that is severely limited by what we can require all implementors to implement exactly the same way. Almost all Ada compilers go beyond the standard in terms of warnings they produce, but trying to formally specify exactly under what conditions a given warning is provided would be extremely complicated, even for a single existing implementation. The only real specification might end up being the source code, which is clearly not something you would want to standardize on. -- -Tucker Taft stt@avercom.net http://www.avercom.net Chief Technology Officer, AverCom Corporation (A Titan Company) Bedford, MA USA (AverCom was formerly the Commercial Division of AverStar: http://www.averstar.com/~stt)