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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea4f04ec8d41f5b7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Ada83 equivalents for Ada95
Date: 1996/05/28
Message-ID: <Ds4yxt.7wJ@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 157232825
references: <md5:0CCFC2005521EA8746533FEB9AA03D75> <Dr70x4.Drs@world.std.com>
 <31A66DAA.7418@sud.ed.ray.com>
 <bbalfour-2805961408500001@stmac0088.std.caci.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <bbalfour-2805961408500001@stmac0088.std.caci.com>,
Brad Balfour <bbalfour@std.caci.com> wrote:
>There are even tools available that you can purchase which will
>automatically detect these problems in your Ada 83 code.

Which tools are those?

>... May people have
>found that just running the code through an Ada 95 compiler, such as GNAT,
>will detect many (but not all) problems.

Running the code through an Ada 95 compiler, and then executing it,
ought to find the vast majority of problems, I would think.

And as Brad says, there aren't many problems.  The two *worst* problems
are probably:  (1) There are now 256 Characters, instead of 128, and (2)
generic formals need a (<>) to accept an unconstrained array.

- Bob