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,e283979660f903f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT 301a with Win95 Date: 1996/06/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 162327358 references: <31C94219.794BDF32@escmail.orl.mmc.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Vadim said: " How about -gnat83 option ?" The -gnat83 switch does provide greater compatibility with Ada 83, for example: new Ada 95 keywords not recognized Numeric Error distinct from Constraint_Error error checks for later declarations performed etc. but it does not guarantee complete Ada 83 compatibility. There are some places where obscure differences in overloading etc are simply not practical to implement. Also, note that type Character is always 8 bits, since this was permitted in Ada 83 (by virtue of the Zandvort WG9 decision) in any case. If you find cases where you think it would be helpful for the -gnat83 switch to do more, then by all means let us know, but we do not promise to be able to fix all such cases. We notice some people using -gnat83 routinely because they are compiling Ada 83 code. That's probably not a good idea for two reasons: 1. If there are incompatibilities, then they should be found earlier rather than later, since most code will be migrated, or at least partially reused, to Ada 95 contexts sooner or later. 2. Since -gnat83 does not provide a guarantee of Ada 83 semantics, you are working in a somewhat ill defined semantic framework when you use this option. We retain it for specialized uses, e.g. running old Ada 83 test suites, rather than general purpose use.