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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Nested separate compilations
Message-ID: <4082@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 89 18:58:16 GMT
References: <4079@hubcap.UUCP>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <4079@hubcap.UUCP>, by wtwolfe@hubcap.UUCP (Bill Wolfe):
> 
>    I have now run into two compilers which balk at nested separate
>    compilations, as per the following example:

   After receiving e-mail to the effect that the ACVC *did* check for this,
   I did some investigation and discovered that the compilers did indeed
   accept the code IF SUBMITTED MANUALLY; it was the automatic recompilation
   facility which was causing the problem.  I had created a directory full
   of foreign code and invoked the automatic compilation-order tool in order
   to get the code compiled, and been rudely informed that the nested
   separate compilation units were missing (utter nonsense) and that c
   compilation was therefore not initiated.  When I collapsed the nested
   separates into the first-level stubs, everything worked perfectly.

   Thanks to everyone who sent mail!  Sorry for the (incorrect) semicolons
   in "separate (whatever);".  This is about the only place where you 
   can't have a semicolon at the end, and every time I make this mistake
   I wonder WHY semicolons are not allowed here, just for consistency reasons..


                                  
                                         Bill Wolfe

                                  wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu