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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b7d3a51d0d8b6ee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: Extending discriminant types Reply-To: no to spamers (No@email.given.org) References: <20081115101632.5f98c596@cube.tz.axivion.com> <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:06:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.228.91 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1227413211 12.64.228.91 (Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:06:51 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:06:51 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:3729 Date: 2008-11-23T04:06:51+00:00 List-Id: 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 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 >