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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.13.201.70 with SMTP id l67mr7808848ywd.164.1499534970629; Sat, 08 Jul 2017 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.65.25 with SMTP id x25mr169851ita.9.1499534970583; Sat, 08 Jul 2017 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v31no1088216qtb.0!news-out.google.com!s132ni897itb.0!nntp.google.com!188no1292511itx.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:191:8303:2100:5985:2c17:9409:aa9c; posting-account=fdRd8woAAADTIlxCu9FgvDrUK4wPzvy3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:191:8303:2100:5985:2c17:9409:aa9c References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Strict aliasing, is it OK? From: Robert Eachus Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 17:29:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47329 Date: 2017-07-08T10:29:30-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 7:40:31 PM UTC-4, Victor Porton wrote: >=20 > But my question about my old code remains valid. Is that old code erroneo= us=20 > or isn't? You are probably too new to Ada to remember Norm Cohen preaching about reas= oning from erroneousness. But to limit myself to the case at hand: Is your code erroneous? Can't te= ll from the excerpts provided, but who cares? The GNAT compiler is nicely = telling you that use of C_Raptor_Parser_Get_Description may lead to erroneo= usness, and offering a nice way to tell the compiler that reasoning from er= roneousness here is bad, and must not be done. >From a software engineering standpoint, the best answer is fix the code now= , so the issue doesn't come up. The second best is to put in the pragma so = that even if your program is fine, some maintenance change won't cause erro= neousness and then the compiler commit evil by reasoning either from errone= ousness, or from assuming the lack of it.