On 12 Oct 2001, at 14:38, CBFalconer wrote:
Your sample above has two faults. It should specify at least (output) in the command line....
I beg to differ. The ISO 7185 Pascal Standard, section 6.10, "Programs," lists the following syntax for the program heading:
program-heading = 'program' identifer [ '(' program-parameter-list ')' ] .
Note that the parenthesized program-parameter-list (e.g., "(output)") is syntactically optional. It is semantically required if the program contains implicit references to "output" (e.g., a "writeln" statement that does not explicitly specify a file variable), but my example did not.
Both of which are minor, but contrary to strict standards.
Minor or not, errors should be flagged in compliance with the standard selected during compilation.
You seem to have multiple levels, 0, 1, extended, and others which have no published standard.
First, a clarification. It is not "my" compiler. I'm just a casual user with an interest in standards-compliant Pascal (specifically, Extended Pascal, ISO 10206) who offers an occasional suggestion to the group.
Otherwise, your statement is correct.
How do I turn on range-checking?
To my knowledge, that is still on the "To Do" list. See the section entitled "Planned features: Misc.", sixth bulleted item.
I get the impression that GPC encompasses the full GCC functionality. Is this correct?
I am not sure what is meant by "the full GCC functionality." GPC does use the GCC back end and therefore may take advantage of the optimizer, output formats, etc. provided therein.
Is the idea to eventually include it in GCC rather than as a separate package.
I will defer that question to one of the primary maintainers, as I am not qualified to answer it.
Does that involve recompiling GPC - it sounds it and I am not really prepared to do that under DJGPP.
It does, but my intent was to make it available for inclusion in GPC, so that a future pre-built binary would include that capability.
Bug is one thing, but the fact that, even with the standard flag, it fails to flag various errors is my concern.
Well, that's a bug too. I'm sure the intent is to reject everything that does not strictly comply with the selected standard. If GPC doesn't, then it's a bug.
Where is your test suite available?
Again, I must defer to the primary maintainers for an authoritative answer, but I believe that the 2200-plus files that appear in the "test" directory of the source distribution constitute the test suite.
...replies do not default to the list, but to the originator. I assume traffic such as this should go through the list.
The list owner has rather strong views regarding whether the reply address should default to the originator or to the list. I happen to disagree with him on this matter :-), but, in any case, replies should indeed go to the list. (No need to copy me separately, as I read the list. :-)
-- Dave