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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,114e43c851a0cefb,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: AG <ang@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Warning in generic instantiation
Date: 1999/05/09
Message-ID: <3734BB9E.F51ED23B@xtra.co.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 475653223
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: The Internet Group Ltd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Could somebody comment on the following warning
I get from ObjectAda compiler (7.1.105) when trying
that:

generic
 size: positive;
 type item is (<>);
procedure matcher;

procedure matcher is
 type set is array(0..size-1) of item;
 type unit is record
    what: set;    --  *** 1
    end record;
begin
 null;
end;

with matcher;
procedure start is
 type unit is (a, b, c);
 size: positive;
begin
    declare
  procedure match is new matcher(size, unit); -- *** 2
    begin
  null;
    end;
end;

The warning I get at line ***2 is:

LRM:13.3(16),Object does not have a meaningful address,
returning a null address

My questions about that:

1. I don't quite see how 13.3(16) is applicable since I don't
directly use anything mentioned there. Is there something
implicit involved?

2. If line ***1 is replaced with NULL, the warning goes
away. So is the warning due to finalising "set" or due to
declaring "unit"?

3. Generally, what's wrong with the above usage? After
all, those types are declared locally or does it matter?

4. Also, it was only a warning so the program compiles
and links and runs with no run-time errors even if I declare
and use objects of "unit" type. So, what was the warning
all about?

Thanks,
AG