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,CP1252 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f7b92fd11ab291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-18 07:43:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F180792.1030109@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers References: <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com> <1058378673.35463@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058390613.119827@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2OERa.4718$0F4.3216@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.71.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1058539418 66.31.71.243 (Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:43:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:43:38 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:43:38 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40470 Date: 2003-07-18T14:43:38+00:00 List-Id: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > That seems to me a very impolite non-answer. > > Even if one granted the obligation of every person to be a full expert > in every issue on which they commented, this is a newsgroup that many > others are reading, not an email discussion. It seemed extremely polite to me. There have been two things going on here. An informative discussion of Ada recompilation policies and why they are the way they are, and Hyman Rosen continually jumping in to pour more gasoline on the flames. There is a lot I can add to the intelligent discussion but I try to control my input to avoid feeding the troll. For example, there were cases where Verdix 5.4.1? blew link-time dependences invovling generic instantiations and required creating a new library and recompiling the world. A bug? Sure. But the bug was there because Verdix did a much better job of mananging generic instances and their dependences, then got confused by some second order effect when generic unit bodies were modified. The usual failure was a generic A withed generic B, and package C contained an instance of A. Recompiling the body of A did not invalidate the compile of C--it only depended on the spec. But that change to the body of A could create a need for new instances of B. If there was a naming conflict between the new instances of B (in the body of A) and the old, Verdix basically threw up its hands. Recompiling everything got rid of the conflicts. So why use Verdix? Because the elimination of the permitted (by the RM) but not required dependences meant that you could do things with Verdix that were not possible with other Ada compilers. -- Robert I. Eachus �In an ally, considerations of house, clan, planet, race are insignificant beside two prime questions, which are: 1. Can he shoot? 2. Will he aim at your enemy?� -- from the Laiden novels by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller.