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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!ima!inmet!ada-uts!stt
From: stt@ada-uts
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Requirement to Implement pragmas?
Message-ID: <4700029@ada-uts>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 14:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.4700029
Posted: Wed May 14 14:11:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 04:18:05 EDT
Nf-ID: #R:<8605070229.AA03824@ucbvax.Berke:-40:ada-uts:4700029:200:762
Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    May 14 14:11:00 1986
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


It turns out that most language-defined pragmas have escape
clauses that say an implementation may limit its acceptance
or simply ignore them.  Hence, "supported" does not require
much.

Pragma SHARED seems to be an exception to this,
and I suspect that as soon as the ACVC writers can
figure out how to test for it, it will suddenly be
implemented in all of the validated compilers.

Even pragma SHARED has an escape clause, namely that
it MUST be restricted to objects for which reading
and updating is implemented as an indivisible operation.
An implementation may (presumably) always claim
that they don't implement ANY objects with indivisible
operations, and hence finesse the pragma completely.
Hopefully the market-place will eliminate such skulduggery.