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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,74b55538385b7366 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Which is right here - GNAT or OA ? Date: 1999/05/31 Message-ID: <7iuq5a$lhq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 484166817 References: <928083159.436.79@news.remarQ.com> <7is6pt$8cd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <928136551.707.11@news.remarQ.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.69.185 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 31 20:07:06 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-05-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <928136551.707.11@news.remarQ.com>, "Vladimir Olensky" wrote: > As I explained in the first message and in here above it > erroneous on purpose. Sorry, Vladimir, but your message is still in the archives, we don't have to rely on memory a) it made no mention of erreoneous b) it complained that the RM does not handle this case (it does, quite clearly) c) it complained that the behavior of OA and GNAT were different, and asked which is right (the subject of this thread is your invention). The complaint is invalid and the question is meaningless. You cannot make any comments or complaints about the behavior of an erroneous program execution or expect any consistency d) it suggested a semantics quite different from the RM for this case, one which would in fact be entirely impractical and certainly undesirable. > It helps to explain why one should check if the variable is > static prior to attempt do deallocate This is highly misleading, you must do this check NOT because different compilers happen to do different things, but because it is erroneous not to do this check, as the RM clearly states. The results of experiments with erroneous programs cannot possibly have any legitimate influence whatsoever on how you code your program. > I only thought that both GNAT and OA will raise exception at > the same Statement_1. That would tend to indicate that you do not understand what erroneous means. Erroneous is a well defined technical term, it does not just mean wrong, or improper. To expect or think that compilers should or will behave consistently on erroneous programs is to misunderstand the definition of erroneous. > Statement_3 was to show that when q_ptr has NULL value > exception should be raised here. Nope! You cannot make ANY statement WHATSOEVER about expectations form an erroneous program execution. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.