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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1f0967a619e5d83e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp16-2.free.fr!not-for-mail Message-ID: <47361A88.F2B8C3FB@free.fr> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:54:32 +0100 From: Christophe TRAVERS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada checks suppression thanks to compilation options and Ada conformity References: <4733972C.C7E7BCE@free.fr> <13j8b1oon6rvncd@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Nov 2007 21:54:34 MET NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.230.37.179 X-Trace: 1194728074 news-4.free.fr 14871 82.230.37.179:61996 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18253 Date: 2007-11-10T21:54:34+01:00 List-Id: Many thanks for your answers, The ada source code should have been developped in compliance with the Ada Norm and a specific Ada satndard. One of the rules of this Ada standard disables the pragma SUPPRESS. The usage of this pragma SUPPRESS in dedicated parts of the source code could have been acceptable on a case by case basis with the adequate justifications. The fact is that the usage of these specific compiler options deletes all the CHECKS inside the entire executable code without justifications. It is quite difficult to declare this Ada code conform the Ada norm and to the specific Ada standards because on one hand pragma SUPPRESS is not used as required but on the other hand CHECKS have been removed by another way (compiler options)! Dennis Lee Bieber a �crit : > On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:09:32 +0100, Christophe TRAVERS > declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada: > > > I send this message in order to get your opinion on the following > > subject : > > > > An Ada program was supposed to take into account the Ada exceptions : > > CONSTRAINT_ERROR, NUMERIC_ERROR, ... > > The pragma SUPPRESS was forbidden. So, it was not used in the Ada source > > code. > > Everybody was convinced that the exception mechanism was fully > > operational in the embedded object executable. > > > > Nevertheless, the object code was compiled thanks to the Ada TARTAN > > compiler with some compilation options have suppressed all the "checks" > > in the entire object code. > > > > From my point of view, these compilation options that can suppress the > > checks are a way to get around the Ada language norm. > > > > What it you opinion on this suject?. > > > Well... from my lowly perspective... > > 1) One text book describes "pragma" as a "directive to the > compiler"... Compilation options can also be considered "directives to > the compiler" > > 2) Many of my Ada texts tend to treat "pragma" as a "suggestion" for > the compiler -- and indicate that compilers are allowed to ignore > pragmas for which they are not coded > > 3) The absence of a "pragma X" does not imply "pragma NOT-X" (eg, > absence of "pragma Suppress" does not imply "pragma Suppress NONE" > > Conclusion: Always read the documentation for the compiler in use. > > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG > wlfraed@ix.netcom.com wulfraed@bestiaria.com > HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ > (Bestiaria Support Staff: web-asst@bestiaria.com) > HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/