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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,cae92f92d6a1d4b1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.ett.com.ua!not-for-mail From: anon@att.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Execution_Time Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Organization: ETT newsserver Message-ID: References: Reply-To: anon@anon.org NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-4.225.171.169.dial1.dallas1.level3.net X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.ett.com.ua X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.6.1 X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16910 Date: 2010-12-14T19:43:48+00:00 List-Id: In , "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> writes: >Randy Brukardt wrote: > > >I believe, back in the old days, there was a requirement that the presence or >absence of a pragma shall have no effect on the legality of the program, wasn't >it? Actually, it still does: Ada 83 thriough 2012 states in Chapter 2 2.8 Pragmas In Ada 83 it states: A pragma that is not language-defined has no effect if its identifier is not recognized by the (current) implementation. Furthermore, a pragma (whether language-defined or implementation-defined) has no effect if its placement or its arguments do not correspond to what is allowed for the pragma. The region of text over which a pragma has an effect depends on the pragma. Note: It is recommended (but not required) that implementations issue warnings for pragmas that are not recognized and therefore ignored. In Ada 95 .. 2012 states: Implementation Requirements 13 The implementation shall give a warning message for an unrecognized pragma name. Implementation Permissions 15 An implementation may ignore an unrecognized pragma even if it violates some of the Syntax Rules, if detecting the syntax error is too complex. Implementation Advice 16 Normally, implementation-defined pragmas should have no semantic effect for error-free programs; that is, if the implementation-defined pragmas are removed from a working program, the program should still be legal, and should still have the same semantics. In Ada 83 the unrecognized pragmas was syntactically check and skipped with an optional simple warning that the compiler will skip that pragma. But in Ada 94 .. 2012 it is a question to what the Implementation will do. It kinds of kills the Ada concept of "predictable" and that's a shame for all who controls the design of Ada.