From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Subject: Re: validation stringency
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 13:01:14 EST [thread overview]
Date: Tue Mar 12 13:01:14 1985
Message-ID: <7058@watdaisy.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 453@harvard.ARPA
> I recently came across a limitation on how complicated a type
> declaration pcc will accept.
Yuk. OK, I guess a portable C program can't nest type declarations more than
one level?
> I don't remember any similar
> nesting restrictions in the Ada standard. Are Ada implementations
> required to allow unlimited nesting? Does the validation suite
> make some sort of attempt to check this?
> -- Rich
I also believe that unlimited nesting ability is required. But if the
compiler runs on a machine with a limited address space (either real or
virtual, it is limited), we can expect some limits. If a limit is too
small, a reasonable validation suite would find out. If a validation
suite tried a thorough test, we probably wouldn't live long enough to
see it hit a limit....
--
Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
prev parent reply other threads:[~1985-03-12 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1985-03-10 8:03 validation stringency Richard Draves
1985-03-12 18:01 ` Norman Diamond [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox