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,ad4aec717fd8556e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: 'size attribute inheritance Date: 1997/08/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264563009 References: <33ECF679.4B5D@lmco.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) wrote: >This was correct behavior for Ada 83, but if it's an Ada 95 compiler, it >has a bug. The indexing expression must either raise C_E or P_E or else >return some value. It can't dump core. Wow! I didn't realize the language had changed that way. (Yes, the compiler I'm talking about is Ada 83.) >>The developer assumed that a Constraint_Error would be raised, but as I >>pointed out in the previous post, this is never a safe, portable assumption >>to make. The compiler can legally omit a range check, reasoning that since >>Index is an object of type Itype, and Itype is the array index subtype, no >>check is required, because Index has to be in the array's range. > >No longer true in Ada 95. I figured to get this behavior you'd require support of the Safety Annex. I didn't know Ada 95 comes that way out of the box. Does unitialized variable checking only apply to array index variables? And do you have an AARM reference? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271