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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cbd507df3efa824b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-31 22:22:09 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Help with Atomic_Components and whole array assignment Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:11:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <95aunb$tpa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <94h55t$9a1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94hml1$o64$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94hno6$p8s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A76E455.AABF2490@averstar.com> <9570vu$fv0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 01 06:11:58 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x58.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4804 Date: 2001-02-01T06:11:58+00:00 List-Id: In article , Simon Wright wrote: > If it were another compiler provider, I would be tempted to > read this whole discussion as "it would cost us a bundle to > implement this, so let's dig our heels in". I don't for one > moment believe that that's the case here. You miss the point entirely. Probably most compilers DO implement MOST of what is wanted, but MOST is not really good enough if you are trying to write reliable portable code. The trouble is that "it" is not properly defined, and is not easy to define from a formal requirements point of view. Too many people write code that they think is correct because it happens to work using one specific version of one compiler. It is quite interesting to note that there is MORE machine code in the Linux kernel than there used to be, precisely because new better optimizing versions of gcc violated improper assumptions about code generation sequences. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/