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: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: Which is right here - GNAT or OA ?
Date: 1999/06/01
Message-ID: <7j0u0l$7nu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 484473980
References: <928083159.436.79@news.remarQ.com> <7is6pt$8cd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jun 01 15:25:15 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1999-06-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7is6pt$8cd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> So this programs is erroneous, and given that, OA and
> GNAT behave identically, namely they give unpredictable
> results.

Yikes. I hope I haven't set a bad trend here in posting a couple of
queries about why Gnat and OA don't handle the same constructs in the
same way. A fair bit about Ada is still implementation dependent. And of
course whenever you (ab)use UNCHECKED_anything, all bets are off. There
are certianly situations where its OK for different compilers to behave
differently.


--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.