Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Gerald Kasner]

=:-) Vincent wrote:
> 
> Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?
> 
> Thanks

There is a very carefully written test software, which I 
release to the public. =;-)).

--##################################################################
with Ada.Text_Io;
with Ada.Long_Float_Text_Io;
with Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
procedure y2k is

   procedure Read_Num( S:  String ) is
      Num:            Long_Float;
      Last_Char_Pos:      Positive;
   begin
      Ada.Long_Float_Text_Io.Get( S, Num, Last_Char_Pos );
      Ada.Text_Io.Put( "Got Number: " &  S  & " = " );
      Ada.Long_Float_Text_Io.Put( Num );
      Ada.Text_Io.Put( "  Last Char Pos: " &  " = " );
      Ada.Integer_Text_Io.Put( Last_Char_Pos );
      Ada.Text_Io.New_Line;
   exception
      when others =>
         Ada.Text_Io.Put( "No year 2000 compilance : " &  S  );
         Ada.Text_Io.New_Line;
   end;
a,b,c : Long_Float;
begin
a:=1.0E36;
b:=2.0E-33;
c:=a*b;        -- for y2k test  =;-))

   Read_num( Long_Float'Image(c));

   Read_Num(  Long_Float'Image(a) );
   Read_Num(  Long_Float'Image(b) );

   Read_Num( "1.00000000E36");

-- ok but now the IMPORTANT y2k BUG

   Read_Num( "2.00000000E-33");
-- ;-)
end y2k;

--###################################################################

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <935487077.548895@dedale.pandemonium.fr>, "=:-) Vincent" <vincent.brosseau@bruker.fr> writes:
> Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?

If you are looking for a vendor to warrant Y2K behavior,
then you need something other than the "p" (public, free,
unsupported) version.

If you just care about "easily discovered bugs" then
the test program offered may be adequate.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Marin David Condic]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <935487077.548895@dedale.pandemonium.fr>, "=:-) Vincent" <vincent.brosseau@bruker.fr> writes:
> > Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?
>
> If you are looking for a vendor to warrant Y2K behavior,
> then you need something other than the "p" (public, free,
> unsupported) version.
>

I thought that ACT had put up a statement about Y2K compliance on their web page which - if all you care
about is a warm-fuzzy feeling about the compiler - ought to move you to the comfort zone. If you're looking
for some sort of guarantee or legal recourse, I'd think you would need a support contract.

>
> If you just care about "easily discovered bugs" then
> the test program offered may be adequate.
>

I think Y2K compliance would involve more than issues about the correctness of the package Calendar or any
other generated-code problems. It would also involve the compilation system itself, since this utilizes
timestamps to determine recompilation questions. I don't know how you would write a simple test program to
check that out. It would seem you would have to run tests while rebooting the computer with different dates.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.mcondic.com/

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

=:-) Vincent <vincent.brosseau@bruker.fr> wrote in message
news:935487077.548895@dedale.pandemonium.fr...
> Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?
>
According to the gnat website (http://www.gnat.com), it is.

URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[=:-) Vincent]

Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?

Thanks

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Gerald Kasner]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 

> 
> If you just care about "easily discovered bugs" then
> the test program offered may be adequate.
> 
> Larry Kilgallen


 Sorry for posting SUCH kind of humor, may be I missed that 
 Y2K compilance may be a SERIOUS problem to someone, but 
 for me it was so OBVIOUS, that 310p is WITHOUT support 
 from ACT and even outdated.

-Gerald

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7ptt39$c4o@hobbes.crc.com>,
  "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
>
> =:-) Vincent <vincent.brosseau@bruker.fr> wrote in message
> news:935487077.548895@dedale.pandemonium.fr...
> > Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?
> >
> According to the gnat website (http://www.gnat.com), it is.


No, that is incorrect. The statement on the web site is a formal
compliance statement that refers ONLY to the supported
GNAT Professional version.

Ada Core Technologies cannot make any formal guarantees of
any kind, and in particular, cannot make any formal Y2K
compliance statements, for any public version of the
compiler, or any version not obtained directly from us
as part of a support contract.

That being said, it is worth remembering that the public
versions of GNAT are essentially the same code base as
GNAT Professional, and so, if what you have is indeed the
public version that we originally supplied (we have no
way of assuring this), then it is likely that it does
not have Y2K related bugs (we certainly do not introduce
any such bugs into the public version).

The important thing to realize is that asking if a product
is Y2K compliant is quite different from asking if there
are troublesome Y2K related bugs. Compliance is about
formal guarantees, and such guarantees cannot be provided
for the public versions of GNAT, at least not by ACT.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


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

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:7qamjs$g88$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7ptt39$c4o@hobbes.crc.com>,
>   "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> >
> > =:-) Vincent <vincent.brosseau@bruker.fr> wrote in message
> > news:935487077.548895@dedale.pandemonium.fr...
> > > Does anybody know if GNAT 3.10p is Y2K compliant ?
> > >
> > According to the gnat website (http://www.gnat.com), it is.
>
>
> No, that is incorrect. The statement on the web site is a formal
> compliance statement that refers ONLY to the supported
> GNAT Professional version.
>
I'm sorry I misunderstood.  I was referring to the big yellow
splash that says "Year 2000 Compliant."  It was neither clear to
me that this refers only to GNAT Professional, nor that is
"a formal statement."

Again, I'm sorry if I misled anyone.

Re: URGENT: year 2000 compliance

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7qdu98$lsq@hobbes.crc.com>,
  "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry I misunderstood.  I was referring to the big yellow
> splash that says "Year 2000 Compliant."  It was neither clear
to
> me that this refers only to GNAT Professional, nor that is
> "a formal statement."
>
> Again, I'm sorry if I misled anyone.

Thanks for pointing out that our Web site statement could be
confusing, we will make sure it is clear in future.

The big yellow splash refers only to products of Ada Core
Technologies (i.e. the fully supported GNAT Professional
versions), and not to public versions obtained elsewhere.
We will clarify this in the next version of our web site.


Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


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