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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f7b92fd11ab291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-20 07:42:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030708 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers References: <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com> <1058378673.35463@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058390613.119827@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2OERa.4718$0F4.3216@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <1058539398.178565@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F18D647.9020505@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <3F18D647.9020505@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:42:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.157.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1058712165 162.83.157.195 (Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:42:45 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:42:45 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40526 Date: 2003-07-20T14:42:45+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Now go back to 10.1.4(5), when you compile a compilation unit, "all > compilation units on which it depends semantically shall already exist > in the environment." So if you (successfully) recompile a unit on which > another unit semantically depends, those two units are now mutually > illegal. How do you fix that? You recompile the dependent unit. Got it? No. First of all, "exist in the environment" is not a defined concept, and doesn't even have to mean object files. For GNAT, existing in the environment just means that it can get at the source code of with'ed modules. Second, nothing in what you stated implies that recompiling a module forces it to be inconsistent with other already compiled modules which depend on it. Some systems do this, but that is an implementation shortcut they have taken, not a requirement from the language. > But why am I spending this effort responding to a troll? I'm not sure why you consider this to be a troll. If nothing else, the fact the recompilation issues were part of the design requirements of Ada 95 should demonstrate that Ada had significant problems in this area, even without pessimizing compilation systems.