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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat?
Date: 1996/07/03
Message-ID: <dewar.836449040@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163736341
references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu>
 	<4rckva$dj1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <JSA.96Jul3200323@organon.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iJon says

"So, the _post_ compilation rule of (15) sez for any body_stub (in the
relevant parent body) there exists a cooresponding subunit with the
"actual body" (so called proper_body).  This bit seems to say the
proper_body is _not_ necessary for the compilation to succeed."

Just to be absolutely clear, of COURSE a proper body is not necssary for
the compilation to succeed. The RM does not "seem to be saying this", it
says in as clear a manner as I can imagine, and there is no other
possible reading, so I don't know why you are looking for one!

That is why GNAT does not require the proper body for the compilation to
succeed (in the RM sense, i.e. to diagnose any semantic errors in the
unit at compilation time), providing that the correct command is given
to gcc.