From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Is Interfaces.Fortran Mandatory or Optional?
Date: 1997/10/02
Date: 1997-10-02T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EHFwwI.74J@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3433C603.4404@boeing.com
In article <3433C603.4404@boeing.com>,
John Harbaugh <johnh.s.harbaugh2@boeing.com> wrote:
>My question is: How can an implementation claim to support Annex B if it
>does not also support Annex G?
See B.2(12,13). There's no requirement to support interface to any
particular language. It would be silly -- suppose there's no Fortran
compiler on some machine. Is the Ada compiler vendor supposed to write
a Fortran compiler?
See also AARM-B.5(17.a), which points out the exact issue you're asking
about.
A compiler might support interface to Fortran, and support just that
portion of Annex G that is needed. For example, it might support the
Generic_Complex_Types thing, but disobey the strict accuracy
requirements of Annex G.
But that's all just legalistic mumbo-jumbo. If your machine supports
Fortran (as many do ;-)), and you want it, then gripe at your Ada
compiler vendor until they support interface to Fortran, and support it
well. In practise, it's not really an RM issue.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-10-02 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-10-02 0:00 Is Interfaces.Fortran Mandatory or Optional? John Harbaugh
1997-10-02 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
1997-10-03 0:00 ` John Harbaugh
1997-10-04 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox