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,e6c08eac0355fd3d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: A Win95 GNAT and UNIX GNAT incompatibility Date: 1996/11/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 196645691 references: <328825A5.2D@ucla.edu> <56dq1e$t1i@saturn.brighton.ac.uk> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John English says "There are many curious problems like this (well, not *that* many -- stop hitting me, Robert! :-) but they are GNAT problems rather than Ada 95 problems, and the GNAT people need to be told more urgently than "the general public" do." Yes, indeed, if I see a report of something that might be a GNAT bug posted to CLA, I completely ignore it. For one thing, it is usually woefully incomplete, and lacks the necessary information for a bug report (full sources, detailed account of situation, version of GNAT being used etc.) Some of these "curious problems" are undoubtedly GNAT bugs, some are not, but posting them to CLA will not bring them to the attention of the GNAT team! P.S. the fact that you get different behavior on two versions of GNAT does not necessarily mean that you have found a bug, there are legitimate system dependent differences, and of coruse erroneous programs may well produce varying results. It is impossible to distingiush such cases from genuine bugs without full information.