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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8bbb1419c8e81a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White)
Subject: Re: Waiver question
Date: 1997/04/23
Message-ID: <5jk07u$ugo@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236717432
References: <33585385.C8D@lmtas.lmco.com>
 <EACHUS.97Apr21141820@spectre.mitre.org> <335D0E73.4E92@lmtas.lmco.com>
Organization: ...
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <335D0E73.4E92@lmtas.lmco.com>, GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com says...

>As for Ada 95, there is no such compiler for the TI DSP target
>in question, only an Ada 83 compiler.

  True, it is only validated as an Ada 83 compiler (Tartan Ada v5.2 ?)
but when you throw the -9x switch (/9x in VMS) you get some Ada 95 
functionality.  Enough to make migrating the code back to pure Ada 83 
a royal pain.  Speaking from experience with the c3x and Tartan Ada.
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White                  -- an embedded sys software engineer