Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code)

[ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)]

In article <37cigq$6e0@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: 
|> In article <37bof4$ljl@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote: 
|>
|> >Indeed one can even argue that it promotes portability for a compiler to
|> >deliberately behave in the worst possible manner when given freedom (I
|> >believe that Tuck mentioned that the Intermetrics compiler has two
|> >options, nice and nasty, for choosing order of elaboration, which seems
|> >a good idea, one which we have had on the GNAT todo list for some
|> >time!)
|>
|> Yes, I agree. Indeed, I would love to see an implementer make a random
|> selection among implementation-dependent possibilities (expression
|> evaluation order, etc.) just to discourage side-effect-y code. 0.5 :-)

Indeed, this is the reasoning behind the following implementation advice
in the Safety and Security Annex:  "Whenever possible, the implicit
initial value for a scalar subtype should be an invalid representation."
The idea is to smoke out uses of uninitialized scalar variables by
increasing the likelihood that their use will raise Constraint_Error.

This approach provides no guarantees, of course, but it does tip the odds
a little bit in favor of the tester (who gets paid by the bug :-) ).

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com