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!out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bug in Ada (SuSe 10.2) ?
References: <0_mdna0iHpIsCifaRVnzvQA@telenor.com>
 <47ba9867$0$21892$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
  <dN2dndl3zoW5Oifa4p2dnAA@telenor.com>
  <dbe54d78-5bd2-4ad0-ab93-f00b099ae5a3@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>
  <spCdnTyCKpCfvSHaRVnzvQA@telenor.com>
  <3a281192-2744-4110-9fc1-90c155c9436b@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
  <qm_uj.42460$yE1.36921@attbi_s21>
  <48277611-402f-4622-be05-6edddf6dd56a@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:06:36 -0500
Message-ID: <uwsox5pib.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/22.1 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GBQbb9biETNJ/KL+avkOKLuFm8o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: cdb9147be8e87e05e48ed11121
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19966
Date: 2008-02-22T04:06:36-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree with your basic point; all compilers have bugs.

But compare the number of times a post on this newsgroup is answered
by "you need -gnato" as opposed to "gnat has a bug"; that makes it
clear that this default was a mistake in the long term, even if there
were good short-term reasons for it at the time.

But it's not going to change now.

-- 
-- Stephe