On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:00:05 -0800, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.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 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
> altogether.
>
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
suppress checks...
>
> > Conclusion: Always read the documentation for the compiler in use.
>
> Absolutely.

My lead in may have been... less than rigorous... but the conclusion
still seems valid <G>
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com wulfraed@bestiaria.com
HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
(Bestiaria Support Staff: web-asst@bestiaria.com)
HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/