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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM,PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,751d508677a5add1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Warren Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [Ada] made me hate programming Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <8f469661-370c-4484-82d8-f1b365455e0f@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <98aa58b3-50fc-418d-9f72-524b5a23c89d@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9f8M0iN5t54V+4DF/iqO8g"; logging-data="23776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191vb+uneh1fIpEOOQaJRU4FBGDDStdO7c=" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 X-Face: &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j Cancel-Lock: sha1:1qzkbAsW3Dw5niNSVN0ANeajXog= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13674 Date: 2010-08-23T16:57:41+00:00 List-Id: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in news:op.vhwgr3ovule2fv@garhos: > Le Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:51:34 +0200, Warren a > écrit: >>> You got it (about the compile-time bug-box, especially when you do >>> no > t >>> have any other choice for the compiler) >> >> It can be a fun exercise to see what is provoking the >> bug box. > Except when this ends to understand there will be no good workaround > and you will have to change many thing (especially do not like it if > what has to be changed.... is at the interface level) I know - but so far I've been successful. I find often I provoke bug-oxes by doing something grossly wrong (like compile a non-gnatprepped source) or I do something unusual but otherwise legal. When the later, it is usually just a mater of making the code "more normal" than "elegant". >> While it is best to report those, I do find that .. > Also, just think bug repository may be actively feed: If so, then my bug(s) are probably covered. > just try to > imagine yourself at the other side of this stream. “Ouch!” you > will say. I don't say ouch- I do understand their pov. However, if you make something too costly/difficult, then you're going to fewer contributions, no matter how well intentioned. \ It's a just matter of compromise at best and I just feel the compromise is a bit one sided. > I agree this is tedious (I have multiple bug reports pending because I > am not sure of some submission requirement details), ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's another problem.. > of it as a little fee you give back... Nobody minds a "little", but IMO it's too much. My hobby time is real short, and I don't have time for "filling out forms" (to use an analogy). >> Instead they insist on *ada files and don't want >> anything that is not involved. Gnat tries to name >> the involved sources, but I have found that this isn't >> reliable - resulting in more futzing around. > Yes, that is why I prefer this: “remove a component, see if the bug > still express, remove a component, see if the bug ...”, until I can > get something small enough and as much as possible free of any > external dependencies or external libraries (if needed, you may also > create an local extract of library dependencies). The problem with this on a large project, is that this is a time intensive process. I prefer to just move on, if a work-around exists. Warren