🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jmcot$ls8@solutions.solon.com>
           jcoffin@rmii.com "Jerry Coffin" writes:

 >In article <4jcknm$a13@solutions.solon.com>, news@Thinkage.On.CA says...
 >
 >> Actually, not all compilers follow the above.  Ours have several levels
 >> of diagnostics.
 >> 
 >> Fatal_errors:  The code is illegal, and so badly screwed up that
 >>        the compiler abandons further source analysis.
 >> Errors: The compiler detected something illegal and will not continue
 >>         other passes.  No usable object deck (loader input) will
 >>         be produced.  The compiler does try to analyse for other
 >>         errors.
 >> Warning: The code is illegal, but the compiler thinks it can generate
 >>         code to do what the programmer wanted.  (The duplicate
 >>         qualifier probably gets this.)  A usable object deck is
 >>         produced.
 >
 >Hmm...an interesting way of going at things.  Given the wording of the 
 >standard, I'm not sure you can say the implementation isn't conforming because 
 >of this, but I rather doubt it's exactly what was intended.  Does it behave 
 >this way regardless of whether ISO conformance is requested?

A warning is a perfectly good diagnostic and as long as the compiler generates
some sort of message for every program that contains a syntax error
or constraint violation it is conforming in that respect. Whether the
compiler proceeds to generate executable code is up to it, the standard
has nothing to say about this.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------