comp.lang.ada Google Group

Re: Possible compiler bug with this simple program

niklas.hol...@tidorum.invalid (Niklas Holsti) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:03:43 UT

I suspect that one problem is using the C convention to pass a
parameter that is of an unconstrained array type, see below.
...
...
So Real_Vector is an unconstrained array type. According to RM
B.3(70), the C convention passes only a single pointer to the first
element of the array, so the 'Range attribute will not be available

Re: Possible compiler bug with this simple program

ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org (Ludovic Brenta) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:56:36 UT

I cannot test your program now but it seems to me that perhaps you
should specify the alignment of the arrays and Long_Floats. Also, it
might be a good idea to double-check that on the Intel Core 2, the
long floats are really 64 bits and not 80 bits wide. It could be that
the compiler got that wrong but I doubt it.

Possible compiler bug with this simple program

lancebo...@qwest.net (Jerry) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:28:29 UT

The following is a program which emulates the structure of a binding
to a bunch of C code (but there is no C code included here--it is all
Ada). This structure exhibits a behavior which I think might be a
compiler error but could be the result of incorrect declarations when
running on certain machines.

Re: Failure integrating .NET GPL version of GNAT into Visual Studio 2005

veen...@xs4all.nl (Rob Veenker) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:57:35 UT

On my machine I found the same problem. There appears to be a registry problem in the GPL version. Normally I use the GNAT Pro version.
Although I'm no expert, I did find that adding the following registry information fixed this problem on my machine.
Put this text in a file called fix.reg and double click on it.

Re: Common exception handling

rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de (Georg Bauhaus) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:20:12 UT

Maciej Sobczak schrieb:
Meanwhile, using a nested programming language,
we can do
type Throwable is tagged private;
...
procedure Outer is
Fail: exception;
package OO_Exception is
type Relevant_Info is new Throwable with
-- everything needed to known what
-- has happened deep down the call chain

Re: Common exception handling

mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:16:40 UT

Yes, but it is still a range, technically, a bounded set. The problem is
that this set can be infinite. Such structure of an ordered set have real
numbers, strings, and, of course, type hierarchies.

Extension = specialization in classic OO (and Ada). When a type is extended
by adding new members and/or methods it is a specialization of the class

Re: Common exception handling

see.my.homep...@gmail.com (Maciej Sobczak) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:22:03 UT

On 26 Sie, 21:14, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
Hierarchies, not ranges.
The difference is that entities in the hierarchy can be not only
extended but also specialized and that would nicely fit in the OO part
of the language.
Yes.
Oh, wait. We have discussed that part already and there was no

Re: www.ada-auth.org is down

ra...@rrsoftware.com (Randy Brukardt) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:17:28 UT

I can't get in, either. I've sent a complaint off to the owners of the
machine...
Randy.

www.ada-auth.org is down

a...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:55:12 UT

If there's anyone reading this who is in a position to get this fixed
but may not have been aware of this: [link] has not been
responding since sometime yesterday.
-- thanks, Adam

Re: Common exception handling

mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:14:10 UT

Right, I fully agree. Ada is overloaded with "special" features.
I prefer exceptions become a "normal" discrete type (only in the interface
of). I wished to have ranges of exceptions so that one could define a group
of related exceptions, and be able to extend such groups. This could the
first step in order to make exceptions contracted.

Re: Common exception handling

a...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:49:59 UT

On Aug 26, 8:10 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
Maybe this use of CASE should be allowed, even if we don't go all the
way and make exceptions first-class entities in other ways. What does
anyone else think... would it be a worthwhile feature to propose
adding? Or is it just too "special" (if we added this, others would

Re: Common exception handling

ro...@adalog.fr (Jean-Pierre Rosen) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:18:59 UT

shaunpatter...@gmail.com a écrit :
I guess this is what you want...
exception
when others =>
-- common part
...
begin
raise; -- Reraises current exception
exception
when A =>
...
when B =>
...

Re: Common exception handling

mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:10:32 UT

Hmm, it looks quite ugly, IMO. Exception handler (case-like) is better
structured, cleaner, and possibly more efficient.
---------
If exceptions were first-class citizens allowed in case statements then:
exception
when E : others =>
Print_Test (Rec);
case E is -- This is not Ada, alas!

Re: Common exception handling

a...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:43:20 UT

No, I don't think it's the only way. I'm surprised no one has
suggested this:
exception
when E : others =>
Print_Test (Rec);
declare
use Ada.Exceptions;
begin
if Exception_Identity(E) = A'Identity then
... handling for A
elsif Exception_Identity(E) = B'Identity then

Re: Common exception handling

shaunpatter...@gmail.com — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:47:27 UT

Yeah, it looks like the extra layer of exception handling is the only
way. I was hoping I could avoid that if possible.
Thanks,