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: 1108a1,b7857cb3cbabcf8d X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b7857cb3cbabcf8d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: ff6c8,b7857cb3cbabcf8d X-Google-Attributes: gidff6c8,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,b7857cb3cbabcf8d X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b7857cb3cbabcf8d X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada News Brief Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189731706 references: <533utt$43p@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> <1996Oct15.160047.1@eisner> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.sw.components,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.edu Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Larry said "Whose bug it is in cases like this depends on whether it was a documented or undocumented hardware restriction. I have run into some nasty problems caused by failure to follow documented hardware restrictions, even by folk who were involved in writing those restrictions ! Even for hardware manufacturers who embrace GNAT as the solution ...." You misunderstood my example, this was a special home built (by the customer) bit of memory mapped hardware that happened to barf on byte addressing. The Ada program deliberately or accidentally counted on a particular sequence of code being generated that was consistent with the particular requirements of this board. No question whose bug this was - the customer's! Nevertheless operationally it was a porting problem!