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: 1997/06/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251445659 References: <33A690CB.5A64@edv.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: H-J S 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.>> Yes, the code is really illegal. Yes, GNAT 3.02, an unvalidated Ada 95 compiler that became obsoleted by subsequent versions well over a year ago did compile it. No, validation does not guarantee that all compiler compile exactly the same code. Validation is a form of testing. Testing does not guarantee absence of bugs. Yes, normally reasonably conformant and mature compilers, one useful, but not totally adequate indication of which is validation, will have this problem less often. Now that Object Ada and GNAT are both validated, they disagree less often, but they do not promise to agree 100%