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: 103376,2609b140b6fc94c5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-24 20:13:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Andrew Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: compiling error Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:12:44 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42873 Date: 2003-09-24T22:12:44-05:00 List-Id: James Rogers wrote: > Andrew wrote in > news:vn4knggj9ptu19@corp.supernews.com: > > >>I'm trying to compile a program and since I'm a little new to the linux >>compiler, the output is .. well kind of throwing me.. I'm hoping that >>someone can help me out. >> >>here is the input / output >> >>========== >>gnatmake maze.adb >>gcc -c maze.adb >>maze.adb:228:12: too many arguments in call >>gnatmake: "maze.adb" compilation error >>========== >> >>I believe that it is telling me what line (I hope) that the error is >>occuring on. >>Is it telling me that line 12 is where the error is at? >> >>I only ask because when I count down 12 lines (including blank lines) >>the line looks ok. So I'm hoping that someone can fill me in on how to >>read the output, in terms of : is it telling what line the error is on. >> >> > > > It is telling you that the offending code is at column 12 of line 228. > It is also telling you that your procedure or function call contains > more arguments than were declared in the procedure or function > specification. > > Jim Rogers ahh.. thank you Jim Andrew