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: 103376,1ea19776e3073a96
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>
Subject: Re: C/C++ programmer giving Ada95 a chance -- writing an emulator.
Date: 2000/04/01
Message-ID: <38E621C2.87B64ED9@averstar.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 605297863
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38E3DBD7.27F5B246@acenet.com.au>
 <2YSE4.251$sy6.25957@news.pacbell.net> <38E44CC7.4206E027@acenet.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com
X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 954605879 27965 141.199.15.19 (1 Apr 2000
 16:17:59 GMT)
Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Apr 2000 16:17:59 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-01T16:17:59+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Geoff Bull wrote:
> 
> If I Initialise the array like so:
> 
>    Op_Table : array (Opcode) of Op_Root
>      := (0 => Op_Root (O0),
>          others => OU);
> 
> then make the assignments:
>     Op_Table (1) := Op_Root (O1);
>     Op_Table (2) := Op_Root (O2);
>     Op_Table (3) := Op_Root (O3);
> 
> I get the output:
> 
> opcode 00
> undefined opcode
> undefined opcode
> undefined opcode
> undefined opcode
> 
> What is going on here?
> It look like the assigments throw away the tag (like Cohen
> says it should) but the initializer keeps the tag.

That would be a bug.  The tag is *not* determined by the initial
value if the target type is "specific" (as opposed to classwide).
The tag *is* determined by the initial value if the target type is classwide.
 
> Indeed the RM says in section 3.9 (22):
> "The tag of an object of a class-wide tagged type is that of its
> initialization expression. "
> The trouble is Op_Table components are not of a class wide type.
> 
> Instead section 3.9 (20) applies:
> "The tag of a stand-alone object, a component, or an aggregate of a
> specific tagged type T identifies T"
> 
> >   I think we have here both an error in Gnat and an error in
> > Cohen's book!
> 
> Unless somebody can show me where the RM says otherwise, I agree.
> I guess I'd better report this.

Definitely a bug.  It looks like GNAT is copying the tag from the initial value,
which it shouldn't do in this case.
> 
> Thanks for the enlightenment.
> Cheers
> Geoff

-Tucker Taft  stt@averstar.com