Re: Extending discriminant types

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

What I am saying is that ALL BUG have been seen and reported by now for the
GNAT-3.xx compilers, because of the volume of users and the amount of time 
that GNAT 3.xx series has been around. Also, professors may or may not call 
Adacore if they find a BUG, but they normally note the error for future 
reference. 

And that until 1997, all Ada compiler including the GNAT-3.xx series were 
under the control of the US's DOD and the RM and only the RM. All newer 
compilers are not under such strong arm control or limitation, rather that's 
the US gov't or the direct rules of the RM. So, you may see a more relax view 
on applying the RM, which mean that newer compiler nay have this and others 
types of an error, not found in the GNAT 3.xx series. 

Also, I am saying that "Pascal Orb", "Thomas Quinot", "Tucker Taft", and 
even the prof "Robert Dewar" are better programmers than that. And 
"Stephen Baird" as an Ada genius and a one time co-programming partner 
would never allow this type of misunderstanding to occur either. Then there 
"Robert A Duff", I may have my differences with him from time to time, 
but even he is better than that as well.  Yes, I know that is only a small 
group of the 50 plus staff at Adacore, but these guys do have a lot of respect 
of the Ada community and their Ada reputation are always on the line.

But every since 2002-2003 when the shift to Ada 2005 specs started, it 
seams that the GNAT Ada team has been using a non-certified form of the 
RM.  Which should never be allowed.

Here is another thought. Since, the use of "base" attribute (as Adam stated) 
was used in this way and legal in Ada 83 specs. Then "GNAT 2005-2008" 
should still allow this statement, if the statement "Pragma Ada_83 ;" or 
command line "-gnat83" option is use.  But as someone else reported this is 
not the case, which kind of suggest that GNAT 2005-2008 compilers are the 
ones in error and leads to the idea that the GNAT 3.15p may be correct 
compiler for Ada 83/95 specs. 

Plus, the complete Ada 2005 specification compiler aka GNAT 2008, has only 
been around a few months and has yet to be fully tested by the Ada community 
which can take years. 

As for GNAT 5.01 and GNAT Pro 6.01, well they were not written under the 
DOD and the RM only control. And they have not been around 10 to 14 years 
yet, for someone to say that 5.01 or 6.01 have been fully checked.


In <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com>, Stefan Bellon <bellon@software-erosion.org> writes:
>On Fri, 21 Nov, anon wrote:
>
>> This type of statement works with GNAT-3.15p, even in GNAT-3.01 as 
>> well as GNAT-3.12. All which are GNAT compilers that use the Ada 95 
>> specification.  That's just too many compilers and programmers
>> testing for Adacore over a period of 5 to 10 years to be a design
>> flaw in one version of a compiler.  And that does not include the
>> 100s to 1000s of GCC people and students with the general public
>> added in that have tested possible every combination of every type of
>> statement (may be to general but you get the idea). The odds that
>> this type of statement not being found until now and at least written
>> up, is astronautical. 
>
>Are you trying to say that GNAT 3.15p must have been a BUG FREE
>compiler because lots of people have used it for a very long time, so
>that each possible combination of statements MUST HAVE been encountered
>by someone?
>
>Are you serious? You know that it just takes someone to name one known
>bug in GNAT 3.15p to prove you wrong?
>
>I once reported two bugs related to negation on a value of a private
>type whose full view is a modular type (and then either producing wrong
>results or crashing GNAT depending whether the modulus was a basis of
>two or not). That was with GNAT 5.04. You could argue that those kind
>of problems must have been spotted years ago, but fact is, they weren't.
>
>-- 
>Stefan Bellon
>