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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx20.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: community-based compiler (was Re: What exactly is the
 licensing situation with GNAT?)
References: <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <Jwy8w.500685$Ub6.487517@fx20.iad>
 <d4b8f45d-e327-4d78-a0d6-838aba063e4d@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoascltws.fsf@pushface.org> <YYE8w.620042$Lj7.284655@fx22.iad>
 <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <zTF8w.509165$No4.167804@fx19.iad>
 <3516753b-5304-408d-99c8-67f544fdc185@googlegroups.com>
 <d6f2eb01-e065-4804-8853-98b9ef6f575b@googlegroups.com>
 <20141114085046.4cb00404@atmarama.ddns.net>
 <nLq9w.723848$Fo3.267307@fx09.iad>
 <8392b6bd-61ab-43f9-aa6d-92a4b3f17f0d@googlegroups.com>
 <gZt9w.655521$1s.624950@fx05.iad>
 <835808234437691990.804817laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
In-Reply-To: <835808234437691990.804817laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ctv9w.522214$Ub6.233903@fx20.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:35:52 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:35:53 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1701
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3682699325
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23334
Date: 2014-11-14T15:35:53-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14-Nov-14 14:07, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Jesus! That would be hell. A compiler without dynamic memory? Really? No
> thanks.

Ah, right; I'd forgotten about that restriction -- I was thinking more 
along the lines of the prover-/verifier-tools -- though aren't there 
large chunks where you don't need dynamic memory?