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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80d6bf135d9e304d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.135.231 with SMTP id pv7mr5842229pbb.8.1328965352341;
        Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni12335pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!feeder.erje.net!news.mixmin.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:01:42 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ann: Zip-Ada v.42
References: 
 <9cf920e1-b8a0-4100-becf-3c5afc2c4be2@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <op.v9gz0okrule2fv@douda-yannick> <jh4fb9$hbj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <2fb5b1b7-da17-424a-a1bb-2cd918a8ca2f@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <2fb5b1b7-da17-424a-a1bb-2cd918a8ca2f@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4f3666b6$0$6637$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Feb 2012 14:01:42 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: de279708.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=UZnl2H\gT:Y5TOT9_N5i<VA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[?^j^cdi7H0XPCY\c7>ejVXW6Of[a[G`RREX9^MYlggj[
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-02-11T14:01:42+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11.02.12 10:35, Gautier write-only wrote:

> Actually, I found a much better way to check purity, which is building
> and testing the library with another compiler (specifically, ObjectAda
> 7.2.2 SE).
> Nothing is worth a second opinion...
> Plus, I get from time to time a feedback about other compilers :-).

It's good to have mini tools made by compiler vendors that allow
anyone to catch a glimpse of what their compiler will likely accept.
A tool like a relatively dumb syntax checker.

If the tool reuses some source text of their compiler's,and is
reasonably up to date, it might help promoting actual portability.
I'd guess, or hope, that ICC's pretty printer tool is such
a thing.