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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: is this a bug of my Ada compiler
Message-ID: <7324@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 88 12:50:32 GMT
References: <243@cui.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <243@cui.UUCP> bertrand@cui.UUCP (IBRAHIM Bertrand) writes:

>In the following sample code, I've been very surprised not to be warned by the 
>compiler that the initial value for k was out of range:

    procedure bug is

    type T is range 0..255;
    k: constant T := 16#FFE1#;

    begin
      null;
    end bug;

>Even at execution time, no exception was raised.

Since the constant K is never subsequently used, the compiler
has probably optimised your code and deleted both K and the
initial assignment to it.  That is legitimate [RM 11.6 (7)],
but I confess I'd rather have had a compile-time warning.

[The person who thought up that
 rule about having to add at least
 as much matter as you quote was
 a BLOODY MORON
]