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-Thread: 103376,a88e582de42cdc9b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bug in Ada (SuSe 10.2) ? Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:22:20 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <48277611-402f-4622-be05-6edddf6dd56a@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> References: <0_mdna0iHpIsCifaRVnzvQA@telenor.com> <47ba9867$0$21892$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi> <3a281192-2744-4110-9fc1-90c155c9436b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203549741 26351 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2008 23:22:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19926 Date: 2008-02-20T15:22:20-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 20, 10:31 am, "Jeffrey R. Carter" wrote: (Sorry for the null reply last time...) > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > That would perhaps be taking things too far. I'm sure the reason that > > this "safe mode" is not the default is because the needed overflow > > checks are relatively expensive, depending on the processor. It's a > > trade-off. But Ada is intended to be a tool to be put to practical > > use, not a statue for us to all gather around and admire its purity of > > spirit. > > I think that was true originally, on certain processors, but I think it's not > still true. I'm not quite sure what this means, and what would have changed... There are definitely processors on which Ada is available for which integer overflow checks would add a significant execution penalty. (One processor I'm working with not only doesn't have the ability to fault on integer overflow, it doesn't even have a condition code status bit of any sort to indicate overflow.) I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this. > I never accepted that it was a valid reason for the defaults not to > be Ada. The simple explanation is that GNAT, by default, is not an Ada > compiler. > You need at a minimum -gnato and -fstack-check for it to be so. Well, if you're going to be pedantic, then even with those flags GNAT is not an Ada compiler, because I can give it Ada programs that it doesn't compile (not to mention non-Ada programs that it doesn't reject, and Ada programs that run incorrectly after GNAT compiles them). And the same is doubtless true of any other compiler. GNAT will not be an Ada compiler until they finally get the Last Bug out, which isn't going to happen because by the time they finally get Ada 2005 to be working 100% correctly, the Ada language will be up to Ada 2067 or so. So maybe it's ridiculously pedantic to claim it's not Ada for that reason---but probably no moreso than for your reason. -- Adam