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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a88e582de42cdc9b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!news.albasani.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bug in Ada (SuSe 10.2) ? Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:31:38 -0600 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: References: <0_mdna0iHpIsCifaRVnzvQA@telenor.com> <47ba9867$0$21892$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi> <3a281192-2744-4110-9fc1-90c155c9436b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <48277611-402f-4622-be05-6edddf6dd56a@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1203553925 5838 69.95.181.76 (21 Feb 2008 00:32:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:32:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19930 Date: 2008-02-20T18:31:38-06:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:48277611-402f-4622-be05-6edddf6dd56a@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 20, 10:31 am, "Jeffrey R. Carter" > wrote: > > I never accepted that it was a valid reason for the defaults not to > > be Ada. The simple explanation is that GNAT, by default, is not an Ada > > compiler. > > You need at a minimum -gnato and -fstack-check for it to be so. > > Well, if you're going to be pedantic, then even with those flags GNAT > is not an Ada compiler, because I can give it Ada programs that it > doesn't compile (not to mention non-Ada programs that it doesn't > reject, and Ada programs that run incorrectly after GNAT compiles > them). And the same is doubtless true of any other compiler. GNAT > will not be an Ada compiler until they finally get the Last Bug out, > which isn't going to happen because by the time they finally get Ada > 2005 to be working 100% correctly, the Ada language will be up to Ada > 2067 or so. > > So maybe it's ridiculously pedantic to claim it's not Ada for that > reason---but probably no moreso than for your reason. Well, maybe you are write pedantically, but I would counterclaim that there is a big difference between a compiler that fails to compile Ada by an oversight (that is a bug) and one that does so intentionally. In any case, I agree with Jeff that this is a bad thing. Overflow checking is a feature of Ada that sets it apart from other languages, and it is bad for it not to be supported by default. It would be like a compiler skipping range checking or variant discriminant checking by default "because they're too expensive". The Ada language even provides a way to turn those things off if they are too expensive -- that surely suggests that the default should be that these checks are present. The other obvious evidence that this is a bad thing is that OP's question: which we see here several times a year. It would obviously be better if we didn't have to deal with that (and remember that many people will not actually write such a question, so there probably are many more that are confused). Of course, this is just griping about a particular implementation. It is always important to remember that Ada /= GNAT. Randy.