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: 103376,4eca860272d4832b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!193.141.41.141.MISMATCH!npeer1.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-devel!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly?
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <87tzxxdnum.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <12shen4qjhv41a7@corp.supernews.com>
	 <1170792077.235994.10900@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	 <HI6dnX9pKMXb1VTYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@comcast.com>
	 <87d54mguco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	 <1170843700.7656.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1170866664.465875.309930@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
	 <GSoyh.1178127$084.353645@attbi_s22> <12slifhk3sqnaca@corp.supernews.com>
	 <87tzxxdnum.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1170930743.5363.60.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:32:24 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:32:09 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: db8241d9.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X29PjRJ0agB[6=1B@oB@@@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRAFl8W>\BH3YB[ZB5jhH]H<KA:ho7QcPOVCAEN_XjIN2jA9:n>^DS0d3K
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9130
Date: 2007-02-08T11:32:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:01 +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Matt Jaffe <jaffem@cableone.net> writes:
> >  I remain curious, however:  Is
> > it a known issue for which a correction to gnat is planned? Or is it
> > planned to leave it forever as a "known oddity"? ...
>
> I agree with Simon and Adam: this is a compiler bug.  My rationale is
> that -gnato is defined as enabling "overflow checks", but modular
> types never overflow.  So, -gnato should have no effect on modular
> types.

Wasn't there a persistent nagging at Ada designers that
they chose to include modular types having a modulus other
that Storage_Element'Size?    :-)