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-Thread: 103376,8df81176cbd821cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:15:40 -0500
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <dcarts$doi$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <1305313.0eqo9PA42Q@jellix.jlfencey.com> <dcatvk$iji$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Range checking not working as expected?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:18:46 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4952.2800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4952.2800
Message-ID: <UfudnaOmGIex6HTfRVn-vw@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-8r4iW6Q8jOcVMiphMAxm5G6M0Al3eUGB6iD65y0j7zlCGOypEfqGdWQY2oyWLQ6OTQjzaHrBIxNHyCP!/f45gD5sotjJi11M/b9Aa9stz8FOVOBIE09DIK2oHGIUiabePPlZh3s1brqm3Q4jDozVTWKW1Srp
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3826
Date: 2005-07-28T19:18:46-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Maciej Sobczak" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:dcatvk$iji$1@sunnews.cern.ch...
> Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
>
> > Try again after compiling with -gnato to actually enable the overflow
> > checking.
>
> OK, it "works" now. It is still not what I'd expect - "the default in
> Ada is safety", or something like this; I'd expect to actually need to
> go into some troubles to disable such checking.

You *should* be right. However, GNAT does not default to the behavior
required by the Ada standard in various ways. Some differences might be an
improvement (-gnatE), but IMHO there is no real justification for the
overflow check.

In any case, this has nothing to do with Ada, but rather with a particular
widely-used implementation of it. So far as I'm aware, the other major Ada
compilers all default to doing this checking (that is, they follow the
standard closely by default). Remember, GNAT /= Ada; it's just one
implementation of Ada.

                     Randy.