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,a0e076952eca80d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada and C++ asserts. Date: 1996/07/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168560873 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nasser says "I think this is not natural behaviour, but since it is documented like this, one can't argue with it. Nasser" Actually I think that in the C environment it is entirely appropriate behavior, because it means that you have a core image around that you can debug. In fact it is quite reasonable that an Ada compiler should call abort on an unhandled exception. GNAT does not, but it probably should, or at least it should have an option to do so. After all you can always put a when others at the outer level if you want to handle such an exception -- an unhandled exception is really a program bug, and calling abort is perfectly reasonable. I really don't see why you would distinguish an assertion failure from a segmentation fault. Basically the latter is a failure of a hardware/OS assertion that addresses should be in range.