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: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/07
Message-ID: <dewar.836797868@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167227919
references: <dewar.836371917@schonberg> <m291cv99nr.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us>
 <dewar.836776773@schonberg> <4rpgkb$kc8@news.nyu.edu>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard Kenner said

"But adding new requirements on the config files is something we try to
avoid, though the work on folding a "zero-cost" exception handling
into GCC is going to require at least some additional work in
each config file."

Sure, but I don't think any of the Ada 95 changes are at the level
that would require config file changes. Yes some config file changes
may be needed for Ada (overflow checking, exception handling ...) but
these are things that are in Ada 83 anyway.