Re: Pure, Storage_Size and Unchecked_Conversion

["Y.Tomino" <demoonlit@panathenaia.halfmoon.jp>]

On Jul 10, 10:35 am, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> You've gotten a whole bunch of answers, but I think the correct one has not
> be provided:
> it is a compiler bug and there should not be an error at F2.

Thank you, the situation became clear for me.
I was looking for the cause and found the correction point of gcc.

sem_ch3.adb
--------------
                if Comes_From_Source (Id)
                  and then In_Pure_Unit
                  and then not In_Subprogram_Task_Protected_Unit
+                 and then not No_Pool_Assigned (T)
                then
                   Error_Msg_N
                     ("named access types not allowed in pure unit",
N);
----------------

The compiler after changing passes the above-mentioned code
though I do not understand whether my correction is correct.

> I'd suggest that you (and others as well) should ask the people at AdaCore
> about what appear to be compiler bugs (especially in things changed by the
> Amendment, which are highly likely to be buggy as they are new) rather than
> confusing many with examples that seem to show non-existent limitations of
> Ada (as opposed to a particular compiler). OTOH, if you don't have an
> AdaCore contract, you won't get a timely answer from them, but I'd have to
> say that you get what you pay for in that case...

Oh....I cannot pay the cost so much.