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: 103376,6afaf3884e6e29ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: win32ada with Object Ada
Date: 1997/06/07
Message-ID: <dewar.865691699@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 246810396
References: 
 <Pine.LNX.3.95.970603155149.11503A-100000@crusher.et.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Saif-Ali asks 

<<If the code in winnt.ads really illegal, I ask, "How  could it be compiled
on Gnat 3.02 (as is mentioned in the readme file)?" Normally all the
validated compilers should be able to compile a code or not to compile a
code.  If some compilers can compile it and other not, then one cannot
talk about compatibility of compilers.
>>

First, the version of GNAT mentioned, 3.02, was not validated, that is a very
old version of GNAT.  

Second, validation does not ensure 100% conformance (no testing can ever
ensure 100% conformance).

It is indeed the validated version of GNAT (4.00) and versions immediately
preceding it (3.09) that correctly reject the illegalities.

But always remember, it is the RM that defines what is legal, NOT any
compiler, and NOT the ACVC tests. Programmer's should not rely entirely
on a compiler to tell them what is legal and what is not. For one thing,
they may accidentally write non-portable code if they do this (it is
perfectly possible to write code that is legal on one compiler and illegal
on another, e.g. somethingt like Integer(System.Max_Int).