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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat?
Date: 1996/07/14
Message-ID: <4sb4av$ful@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 168394025
distribution: world
references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.837148752@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: 

|> For example, suppose someone starts worrying whether it is valid to
|> compute a + b as (4 * a + b - 3 * a), which could raise intermediate
|> overflow.
|>
|> The answer is of course that of course this is invalid (to raise the
|> intermediate overflow because of using such a scheme).

I presume you mean that it is invalid to compute a+b this way because of
the potential overflow, and not that it is invalid to raise an exception
because of the overflow.

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com