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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe7b178ffa3708a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-25 17:30:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: RE: Omission in the Ada Standard
Date: 25 Sep 2003 19:30:40 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <OOiLZwwgQEAY@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <mailman.3.1064517922.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1064536165 4878 192.135.80.34 (26 Sep 2003
 00:29:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:29:25 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42951
Date: 2003-09-25T19:30:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <mailman.3.1064517922.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>, "Beard, Frank Randolph CIV" <frank.beard@navy.mil> writes:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Kilgallen
> 
>>> Robert C. Leif writes:
>>> While I was working on my latest project, the CellFuge, I was shocked
>>> to learn that Jerry van Dijk's Io_Ports package that I have did not
>>> compile with GNAT. I do need an up to date version. Since the Intel
>>> Pentium class of processors and their clones are a very large part of
>>> the software market, the possibility of port based IO should be
>>> included in Ada.
>>
>> And what would the meaning be on some other processor for which a
>> standard-compliant Ada compiler is needed ?
> 
> I guess the same as GNAT.  Over half of the GNAT source I see, that
> is of interest to me, won't compile on my Aonix compiler because of
> some GNAT.Some_Package reference.  I have to go in and surgically
> modify the code. Portability ends up moving from the language
> to the tool.  So, "my GNAT code is portable so long as GNAT has been
> ported to the new platform".  This has been an issue for a while and
> no one seems to be too concerned.

But the suggestion here is that the Ada standard would be platform-specific.
That is quite a different thing than an individual compiler.