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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8567eadfdf78b98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-17 05:23:23 PST Sender: jerry@JVDSYS Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why does this happen? References: <3DAC92DB.4090307@linux.nu> From: Jerry van Dijk Date: 17 Oct 2002 14:08:11 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: slip32-106-5-252.rot.nl.prserv.net X-Trace: 17 Oct 2002 12:05:03 GMT, slip32-106-5-252.rot.nl.prserv.net Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!slip32-106-5-252.rot.nl.prserv.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29864 Date: 2002-10-17T14:08:11+02:00 List-Id: Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) writes: > Does the -gnat83 switch still allow non-Ada83 programs with -1 .. 100 > literal loop constraints pass without any warnings? If it does in the current compiler, than it probably still does. Note that by better, I mean that it functions better on Windows (less blowups), not that there are additional frontend bugs resolved. 3.14p is, IMHO, still the better compiler. -- -- Jerry van Dijk | email: jvandyk@attglobal.net -- Leiden, Holland | web: users.ncrvnet.nl/gmvdijk