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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4576669b9167cd1d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: guerby@gnat.com (Laurent Guerby) Subject: Re: NVRAM or how can I enforce a range check in Ada83. Date: 1996/11/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 197611433 sender: guerby@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu references: <9611150709.AA09539@algol.ocag.ch> <328DE73D.581B@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: New York University reply-to: guerby@gnat.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert> identify = some indication of an error = pretty vague. Robert> For example, a compiler is conforming if it says the Robert> following: Robert> In accordance with 1.1.3(1,4), this compiler identifies Robert> program units that contain errors by not generating an object Robert> file for any such units. This is one point where the ACVC (I'm thinking about the B tests) can be see as very positive. A vendor whose compiler intends to play this game ("unit blah is legal/illegal, thank you good bye.") will have to face a huge paperwork effort (more than 1000 B tests with may be 10 or more errors per test = 10_000 splits, forget it). Worth producing some error messages near where the "-- ERROR" are ;-). I've never heard complaints about Ada compiler error messages (as opposed to code quality or bugs) and ACVC B tests might not be foreign to that. Think about the average C compiler error messages ... -- Laurent Guerby , Team Ada. "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."