Re: Warning in generic instantiation

[AG <ang@xtra.co.nz>]

I realize I posted that on the weekend, but there were
quite a few postings since. So, could some of the language
experts comment on the following:


AG wrote:

> 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