Re: GNAT proposal: note on implicit exceptions insertion

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jesper Quorning" <jesper.quorning@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:989ea6c7-b432-4214-beec-c0a50b76932c@googlegroups.com...
...
>> In the case of AdaCore, they have other tools for finding quality 
>> problems
>> in Ada code (like CodePeer), and they may very well want to put new 
>> effort
>> into those rather than into the compiler.
>
> You will reduce the need for other tools as the promary tool, GCC just 
> reports
> as notes, what it is doing anyway.

That's the reason for doing it in Janus/Ada. I don't see a reasonable place 
to put quality checks into normal workflow other than the compiler. In a 
separate tool, it is too late (unless of course you run those tools 
everytime you compile). The sort of problems found by quality warnings are 
easily found by testing; the value is to save the time debugging "obvious" 
errors. See the RRS blog entry on quality warnings: 
http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/blog/quality.html for more on this topic.

Anyway, my point in mentioning that AdaCore has other tools for that purpose 
is that AdaCore may have business reasons for not wanting to put more stuff 
into the compiler. If you're giving away the compiler, then it might make 
business sense to keep some of the capabilities in stuff that you are 
charging for. (Let me say that I have no knowledge whatsoever on this topic, 
it is just speculation on my part.)

I see from other messages that there is way to get the information you're 
asking for, even if it isn't optimal. So it's also likely that AdaCore will 
consider the need handled.

                    Randy.