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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,78447032bdbeb343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <30917be5-1446-417c-8a4e-18b2f9a1f420@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13aa4422-c478-478e-8e33-882508d9d1f8@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:01:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.216.41 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1211972473 12.64.216.41 (Wed, 28 May 2008 11:01:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:01:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:421 Date: 2008-05-28T11:01:13+00:00 List-Id: Check the comments in GNAT's package "Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control" which includes the "pragma Unimplemented_Unit;" statement. And as for compiler allowing "--allow-unimplemented-units" this is against the Ada RM. It might be possible to compile Ada without the body for all routines But you must provide either a link (pragma Import) or the body to all routines before binding and linking. In <13aa4422-c478-478e-8e33-882508d9d1f8@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santiago_Urue=F1a?= writes: >> So the proposal would be adding to the next Ada revision two new >> pragmas: >> >> pragma Assumption ([Check =3D>] boolean_expression[, >> [Message =3D>] string_expression]); >> pragma Assumption_Policy (policy_identifier); -- Error, Check >> >I've been thinking more about it, and probably the compilers should be >encouraged to choose a long switch name to reduce the chance of >forgetting to remove that it in the final binary. For example, instead >of (say) "-gnatap", choose something like "--allow-unimplemented- >units". > >And maybe the pragma Assumption_Policy is a bad idea for the same >reasons: this pragma has preference over the compiler switches (at >least for gnat in the case of pragma Assert_Policy), so it is very >easy to forget to change the policy from "Check" to "Error"... > >-- >Santiago Urue=F1a-Pascual >Technical University of Madrid (UPM)