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: 103376,25aa3c7e1b59f7b5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-10 17:34:13 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news2.euro.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: A case where Ada defaults to unsafe? Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:31:19 GMT References: <3C39E62F.3020504@look.ca> <3C39E726.8000408@mail.com> <87advpdi0f.fsf@chiark.greenend.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18753 Date: 2002-01-11T01:31:19+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol writes: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:47:56 GMT, Robert A Duff wrote: > > But replace "x + y < 4" with something that fails in some other way (not > > overflow). Then Hyman Rosen's point is correct: the compiler has to > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > But as I see it is not relevant if the compiler has to do this, the > issue is if the machine code has to do this or not. OK. The compiler has to generate machine code that has to .... - Bob