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: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-22 09:41:41 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!verio!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)
References: <bub5n8$kf5$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
 <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com>
 <buc87c$8p$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
 <slrnc0je79.hlv.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <budjfo$n18$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <budvvf$9al$1@online.de>
 <bue4r7$3n6$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0lddd.2bt.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nlj3.1jn.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nncv.4qq.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <nBdPb.5187$rW5.288435@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <LNOdncWFbKUojpLdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>
 <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <wcc7jzkoyua.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wcc7jzkoyua.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <cJTPb.16303$U77.1296078@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:27:26 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1074792392 198.96.223.163 (Thu,
 22 Jan 2004 12:26:32 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:26:32 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4659
Date: 2004-01-22T12:27:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>>"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:LNOdncWFbKUojpLdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>E:\Ada\Test>system_names
>>>system_names
>>>  The Available System Names are: SYSTEM_NAME_GNAT.
>>>
>>>  Current System.System_Name is: SYSTEM_NAME_GNAT.
>>>
>>>Is there any compiler that produces a useful output?
>>
>>Dunno. We used to have additional names in that enumeration, but I believe
>>we removed the capability because of the ACVC. In Ada 83, you were supposed
>>to be able to set the value of the System_Name (via a pragma, I believe) to
>>any of the allowed choices. The best way to "avoid" that test was to have
>>only one name in the enumeration. Then, the test couldn't do anything
>>useful.
> 
> There was also a pragma to change the size of a storage unit.
> Very strange.  Compilers are not generally capable of redesigning
> the target hardware in the fly!
...

Non-standard pragmas (implementation defined) are another reason
why conditional compilation (or preprocessing) is required.
Sometimes it is necessary to use the non-standard pragmas,
especially when doing bindings.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk