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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e1d728aa632a5b94
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr22039613pbc.1.1341858499212;
        Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11236pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat: broken dispatch tables for interface types ?
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:28:17 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <19dhv5d0fbg8s$.1pdcb0db9g4p0$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <c231a9b2-8fb7-41ab-98a2-72173a08f66c@googlegroups.com>
 <19yhfqeqkm9kc$.fcax7yetctwy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <77fa1487-e67d-4660-9073-f4edec4295bf@googlegroups.com>
 <acd97580-e0cd-4ed9-9b66-026019da503d@googlegroups.com>
 <1x0xui2k9bjoi.acdcm0afix9u.dlg@40tude.net> <m24nph1diw.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
 <to9eaae5zm7b$.1p192u4vtogb3$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2y5mszvp5.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-09T20:28:17+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:32:54 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:37:11 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>>> 
>>>> One thing though is that you should not derive new tagged types in
>>>> bodies.
>>> 
>>> As a matter of interest, why not?
>>
>> It does not work well. I never analyzed the RM for the cases when the type
>> of an object could die before the object itself. But I certainly prefer not
>> to tease GNAT with these.
> 
> Perhaps you meant in subprogram bodies? I don't see how the life of a
> type declared in a library-level package body can die.

Upon package finalization and elaboration when things get used prematurely.
It may work or fail in both directions.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de