This is a discussion on Ada checks suppression thanks to compilation options and Ada conformity - ADA ; On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:00:05 -0800, Keith Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada: > > But this doens't apply to pragma Suppress, which is defined by the > language; for that, you have to look at what the ...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:00:05 -0800, Keith Thompson <email@example.com>
declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada:
> But this doens't apply to pragma Suppress, which is defined by the
> language; for that, you have to look at what the standard specifically
> says about pragma Suppress. A pragma Suppress gives the compiler
> permission to omit the specified check(s). It doesn't require it to
> do so, and a conforming compiler could ignore pragma Suppress
Okay -- my words were "in general"...
> > 3) The absence of a "pragma X" does not imply "pragma NOT-X" (eg,
> > absence of "pragma Suppress" does not imply "pragma Suppress NONE"
> Yes, it does. The language standard requires certain checks to be
> performed. This requirement applies *unless* pragma Suppress is used.
> If you don't use pragma Suppress (or some implementation-defined
> pragma with similar semantics) and a required check is not performed,
> then the implementation is failing to conform to the standard.
I may have short-cut my statement too much... I'd meant to imply
that the absence of a specific pragma in a source file does not imply
the negation of that pragma -- if there is a compiler option with
similar meaning as the pragma itself. Or... a "pragma suppress(NONE)"
(if such were valid) should override any compiler options that would
> > Conclusion: Always read the documentation for the compiler in use.
My lead in may have been... less than rigorous... but the conclusion
still seems valid <G>
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
(Bestiaria Support Staff: firstname.lastname@example.org)