From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,227f28d340d60167 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!informatik.uni-bremen.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Turning off "Unit xxx not referenced" warnings? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <1099043512.777330.230800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1099443290 18866 134.91.1.34 (3 Nov 2004 00:54:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:54:50 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5971 Date: 2004-11-03T00:54:50+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote: : A portable way is to mention each in a pragma Elaborate (or : Elaborate_Body). That may be a good way to do it, since it emphasizes : that they are there in order to be elaborated. The portability gained cannot be stressed enough, I think. When a pragma identifier is known by two compilers that expect a different argument list, chances are that you can no longer compile programs using one of the compilers. (Pragma Unsuppress is currently one of them, pragma Linker_Options should IMHO immediately be rubbed out everywhere and replaced with proper project configuration files or similar.) Abandon portability just for the luxury of not seeing a particular warning with some versions of one Ada compiler? (A compile log without warnings isn't necessarily an indication of a correct program, is it?) Georg