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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169181426 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Norman asked: > > "I presume you mean that it is invalid to compute a+b this way because of > the potential overflow, and not that it is invalid to raise an exception > because of the overflow." > > Well not quite, it is not invalid to compute a+b that way, it is invalid > to compute a+b that way if it will indeed raise an exception. If you > compute a+b that way (4 * a + b - 3 * a), and you do not raise an exception > during the computation (as is allowed by the optimization rules), then this > is a stupid and inefficient thing to do, but is not invalid. It would appear that this was not a particularly good example to illustrate your point! Apparently it is not even all that clear to the PTB! :-) :-) :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com