Re: Semantics of Inline vs non-Inline

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

aschwarz@acm.org (skidmarks) writes:

> "Christoph Karl Walter Grein" <AdaMagica@web.de> wrote in message news:<mailman.43.1098357729.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>...
> 
> > Only if it didn't, you have a point against your compiler vendor
> > and should push his nose to this pragraph.
> 
> Two points:
> 1. A warning message was issued stating that a 'null' value would
>    be substituted for the input address, and
> 2. At run-time, the error was caught with Windows not Ada.
> 
> here has been mention that for the case at point, the compiler is not
> correct (both 1. and 2. are erroneous) and also that the compiler is
> correct (1. is correct and 2. is erroneous).
> 
> For respondents not literate in the LRM but, nonetheless trying to
> produce a product, the feeling is that 1. and 2. are erroneous. This
> includes myself.

1 cannot be erroneous, because erroneous is about what happens at run
time to your incorrect program, not about compiler messages.

2 is a perfectly legit response to an erroneous program.

"erroneous" does NOT mean exactly the same as "wrong" or "not what I
wanted". In an Ada context, it has a specific meaning. See ARM
1.1.5(10):

   "In addition to bounded errors, the language rules define certain
   kinds of errors as leading to erroneous execution. Like bounded
   errors, the implementation need not detect such errors either prior
   to or during run time. Unlike bounded errors, there is no
   language-specified bound on the possible effect of erroneous
   execution; the effect is in general not predictable."

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.