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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e8c8d1c63ffacf0d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Simon Wright Subject: Re: Constraint checking of actuals passed to Attributes Date: 2000/05/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 624188746 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 References: <391250A8.99D1585C@hotmail.com> <39171B69.2F983487@averstar.com> <8f93lm$1es$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8f9snr$vbr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 958503352 nnrp-11:22947 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 Organization: At Home Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Date: 2000-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff writes: > In the run-time model the AverStar compiler chooses, the compiler can > prove validity quite often. For example, an 'in' parameter of an > integer type is always valid, because it was constraint checked at the > call site. Presumably this isn't true if the subprogram was exported ..