Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:00:41 -0600
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>GNAT is not fully conformant to all the semantics required for
>>>in it's default mode, and rightly so, I believe. [..]"
>>Err, why does this seem to be a plus point to you?
>It's not a major issue for me, but my personal opinion is that the defaults
>pass validation, and people who need the performance boost of turning off
>kind of checking should have to do it intentionally.
Well, that's probably true. In this particular case, I remember the
GNAT documentation argues that the cost of this check is pretty high,
and the number of times it's likely to cause a problem is pretty low, so
the check is not high-value, but it is high cost. Maybe someone at ACT
is listening and can comment?