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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4eca860272d4832b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:02:23 -0600 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly? References: <12shen4qjhv41a7@corp.supernews.com> <1170792077.235994.10900@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87d54mguco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1170843700.7656.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1170866664.465875.309930@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <12slifhk3sqnaca@corp.supernews.com> <87tzxxdnum.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <9l0fqe.51f.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:02:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87lkj8eraa.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CNLCR5PJDYyMy6TruQJ0Mu1IHQ0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.202.12 X-Trace: sv3-N8goXr0ecbGcu8W+sefRjPZltvCveNE+J/s4ynKCNMYuEiT60Wdj2O9Z/j6aGrnXa9bmi/J/+UEd23X!/ClcqBWBo9YPAu0aEQYtW9sPWjzdzajqWDqceYWLeTmXUKpGogFOqP0fIJk+LnJjd7PE9JzQew== X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9137 Date: 2007-02-08T14:02:21+01:00 List-Id: Jean-Pierre Rosen writes: > Ludovic Brenta a écrit : >> I agree with Simon and Adam: this is a compiler bug. My rationale is >> that -gnato is defined as enabling "overflow checks", but modular >> types never overflow. > Just to nit-pick a little bit: C_E is raised in case of divide by 0 > (but that's the only case). Is that an overflow? I don't think so, and even without -gnato there is bound to be a run-time check. -- Ludovic Brenta.