dana@gatech.UUCP (07/15/86)
Sometime back I had sent a question over the net asking people if they
would test what their Ada compiler would do for a particular piece of
code. The problem in question was whether or not the instantiation of
a generic package could be performed with a parameterized record which
had default values for its parameters. The results are as follows:
compiler | did it | did it
used | compile | run
| correctly? | correctly?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Verdix Ada Compiler, Copyright 1984 | yes | yes
Version 5.1b - ACVC 1.6 - VAX ULTRIX 1.1 | |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Rational Environment | yes | yes
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
NYU AdaEd-C 1.7 (t) | yes | yes
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
VAX Ada V1.2-15 | yes | yes
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Concurrent Computer Corporation C3 | |
Ada Compiler R00-00.00 | yes | yes
(compiler passes all ACVC 1.7 tests) | |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
VAX Ada compiler v1.1. | yes | yes
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
ROLM/DGC ADE 2.30 | no |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Intermetrics Ada Compiler, version 201.06| yes | yes
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(t) found an unrelated bug in the compiler -- it wouldn't
accept the type mark LIST in the package body of LIST; apparently it
got confused and thought LIST in the package body denoted the package!
The tests that enforce the approved interpretation were included in version
1.8 of the validation suite, which became effective June 1, 1986 (i.e., just
this month). Implementations validated under versions 1.6 or 1.7 might also
conform to this interpretation, but there were no tests requiring them to do
so.
Although one additional person had sent me mail that their Ada compiler
did not correct compile the example, they did not send me the name of that
compiler so that it is not included in the above data. It certainly seems
that most compilers do perform correctly for this case. Perhaps our compiler
is a bit too old (Georgia Tech is not the fastest purchaser of "new" software
:-) ). Sorry this took so long to get out, and thanks to everyone who sent
me mail.
j dana eckart
CSNet: dana @ GATech ARPA: dana%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!dana
--
j dana eckart
CSNet: dana @ GATech ARPA: dana%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!dana