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,b615913f702d577f,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Mechanism for calls (WAS: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as
 C?
Date: 1997/07/06
Message-ID: <dewar.868190442@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254991220
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Donovan said

<<the book I've got says that programs that depend on the mechanism used are
erroneous. I would take a bloody good compiler to raise an error on a
program that does it.>>

 The book you have is either itself an old Ada 83 book, or is confused.
 This was a rule in Ada 93, but is definitely NOT a rule in Ada 95!

John Nagle said

<<It can be done.  See my "Practical Program Verification">>

referring to "bloody good compiler ..." above

  No it can't, not in the general case. It's equiavalent to the halting
  problem. Secondly, the rule, it is an Ada 83 rule, is a very weak one,
  since effect is not defined. it is precisely because the rule is so
  bogus that it was removed in Ada 95!