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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe62d63cd6fe976f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Sequential_Mixed_IO (DEC) for GNAT
Date: 1996/03/27
Message-ID: <dewar.827954747@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144498705
references: <4j794u$ldn@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <dewar.827809167@schonberg>
 <4jah88$9iv@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Fergus asks

">For GNAT, the -gnat83 switch is like a
>configuration pragma, the entire program must be compild wit
>this switch consistently.

Just curious: why is that the case?  Does it change how data
is represented, and if so, in what way?"

No, it changes nothing at all in the code or the data.

But didn't you start this thread? The issue is whether you can mix
ada83 and ada95 in the same program, or more accurately, since of
course that mix is ok, mix gnat units compiled with -gnat83 and 
ada 95 units in the same program. The answer, as you discovered
is sometimes no. 

We could do extra work to make -gnat83 work for this, but it is
a marginal feature anyway, and it is not worth the trouble,