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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1556a5535c129d37
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>
Subject: Re: Is this code legal
Date: 1999/06/14
Message-ID: <3765248A.9223B27B@averstar.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 489477965
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.burl.averstar.com
References: <929221299.108.55@news.remarQ.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)  Burlington, MA  USA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> Yesterday I tracked down a bug in one of my programs where an Unbounded
> string was containing garbage and causing Index_errors.  I traced the
> problem to the following code.
> 
> -- All of this code is inside a procedure of a protected object
> 
> Function Command_Buffer return Unbounded_String is
> 
> -- Command_Buffers is an array of Unbounded_strings
> -- Current_Buffer is an index in this array which is the index of the
> current_buffer
> 
> begin
> 
>     return Command_Buffers(Current_Buffer);
> 
> end Command_Buffer;
> pragma Inline(Command_Buffer);
> 
> <unrelated procedure sniped>
> 
> Procedure Update_Buffer is
> 
>    <unrelated declares sniped>
>     True_Buffer          : Unbounded_String renames Command_Buffer;
> 
>     <unrelated Declares sniped>
> 
>     Command_Buffer : Unbounded_string  := True_Buffer;
> 
>     <rest of procedure snipped>
> 
> I have fixed the code by changing the True_Buffer declaration to an
> assignment as opposed to a renaming.
> I was wondering such a renaming is legal in Ada 95 since True_Buffer  is an
> Unbounded_String and Command_Buffer is a function.
> 
> Any help would be appricated.

This looks like a compiler bug.  What you are doing is entirely
legal and non-erroneous, so it shouldn't produce "garbage" in
the various unbounded strings.  Generally the rename of a function
return is identical to the assignment of the value, for non-limited types.
For limited types, only the rename is permitted.

> -Chad R. Meiners

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA