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: 103376,32a9c4641bed19de
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: FY Ammo: Study about Security Bugs
Date: 1999/11/26
Message-ID: <yecd7sx2g16.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 553402330
Sender: kst@king.cts.com
References: <slrn83qb10.kn.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <m366yqk69o.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no> <81k5oi$44k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <m3yabltvy5.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no> <81m32q$bji$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 943645525 21099 198.68.168.21 (26 Nov 1999 19:45:25
 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com
Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
[...]
> In GNAT, there is a pragma Unsuppress (now being discussed for
> semi-standardization) that can be used either as a configuration
> pragma, or locally to ensure that checks are on, even if they
> were turned off at the command line level. Unsuppress has
> exactly the same form and usage as Suppress.

BTW, TeleSoft's Ada-83 compiler had a pragma No_Suppress with the same
semantics.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"Oh my gosh!  You are SO ahead of your time!" -- anon.