Re: Ada 95 Numerics questions for the experts

[fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Tuck said
>
>> Going beyond the RM is not always in the customer's interest,
>> as they may have to move to another Ada compiler at some point, and
>> one of the goals of standardization is portability between implementations.
>
>Tuck says "follow the recomendations" here where he means "follow the
>minimal requirements". There is a big difference.
...
>Yes, as Tuck says, if your primary concern is that code written for your
>compiler be easy to move to other compilers, then you implement the
>minimal lower bound. But if, as in the case of GNAT, your primary goal
>is to be inclusive, and correctly process code from other existing
>compilers providing a wide range of functionality that is permitted by
>the RM, but not required, or recommended against, then you implement
>the maximum.

Does GNAT have an option to warn about the use of non-portable constructs
such as the ones discussed in this thread?

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.