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,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public From: Keith Thompson Subject: Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Date: 2000/01/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 573510659 Sender: kst@king.cts.com References: <387C8859.621FA20B@netscape.net> <387CC1C0.4C57E34C@quadruscorp.com> <387CEE4A.3965@Ganymede.com> <387F8E50.11D27E14@quadruscorp.com> <85oclj$nbp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387FCA73.3A61@Ganymede.com> <85ok6v$iee$1@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com> <3880CCC7.261957BC@quadruscorp.com> X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 948062067 87575 198.68.168.21 (16 Jan 2000 22:34:27 GMT) Organization: CTS Network Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,rec.aviation.military X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com Date: 2000-01-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I should really just give up on this thread; it's showing no signs of going anywhere. "jtarver" writes: > Keith Thompson wrote in message > news:yecaem64cny.fsf@king.cts.com... > > "jtarver" writes: > > > Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. > > > DEC had extensions when their computer became the defacto standard > > > for Ada. At the time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data > > > General was rightiously upset when this was done. I was working > > > SDI in the 80s when Ada became the perfered controls language. > > > > Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I > > was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you > have a reading comprehension problem? Not usually, but some writers do give me some trouble. Let's try again. I don't know what you mean by "extended instruction sets" in this context. The phrase "instruction set" usually refers to the set of instructions that can be executed by a specific kind of CPU. In this sense, an extended instruction set would be relevant to users of an Ada compiler only if they're using machine code insertions. MCIs aren't generally considered to be a language extension, though I suppose you could look at them that way. They're a facility for writing deliberately non-portable code, and in my experience they're rarely used. (My experience may be atypical; the Ada code I wrote had to run on multiple platforms, so of course it couldn't use MCIs.) If you're referring to the instruction set the compiler uses for generated code, of course that's going to be non-portable, but that has nothing to do with extensions to Ada. If you're referring to something else, you're not using the term "instruction set" in the same sense most of us do. You refer to extensions to Ada implemented in VAX Ada compilers. Again, what extensions are you talking about? A snippet of sample code that depends on such an extension would be helpful. (Note that implementation-defined pragmas and attributes have always been specifically allowed by the language standard, and implementation-defined library units are not extensions to the language.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.