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,ecc38b3271b36b88
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!138.195.8.3.MISMATCH!news.ecp.fr!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!weretis.net!feeder5.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.gnuher.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is the warning about builtin-function on gcc-4.6.0 ?
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:05:31 +0200
Message-ID: <87sju8lcis.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <b7736fb9-8593-47cc-9ac5-58a95ff6be5f@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
	<87aagiclte.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<475d10ca-5d4e-490c-9b88-e12cd3cd3faa@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<87d3lejjyv.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<6c748f70-7e75-49b4-a467-d1d2d6b24323@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<m2d3leey0k.fsf@pushface.org> <87k4flhoeg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<m28vw1g7wf.fsf@pushface.org> <8762r5hl2u.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<imm67s$49s$1@munin.nbi.dk> <87vcz5ot5z.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<wcc62r4h5ha.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ruchba.enyo.de 1301245531 10972 172.17.135.6 (27 Mar 2011 17:05:31
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m7XKXf7pFxzAloi4AeYrZgaRLEk=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19473
Date: 2011-03-27T19:05:31+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* Robert A. Duff:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> This is at odds with the existing Ada literature, and existing ACATS
>> tests (C45632A, for example).
>
> Hmm, I got curious, and looked at C45632A.  It looks wrong, to me.
> "EQUAL (ABS I, I)" should return False, or else raise C_E.
> The test requires it to return True, or raise C_E.
> Maybe they meant "EQUAL (ABS I, - I)".

I think the equality test is just there to provide a better failure
message.  With wrap-around semantics, both abs I = I and abs I = -I
are true.  There's still a call to Failed further down, so this
doesn't affect the correctness of the test.