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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c840deaa6965e67a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-28 16:02:04 PST
Path: 
 swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Memory overwrite?
Date: 28 Jan 1995 17:49:28 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3gehlo$i05@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <3g86nm$mj3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <D32HMF.FM9@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-01-28T17:49:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bob Duff says:

>procedure CRASH is
>  subtype CONSTRAINED_INT is INTEGER range 2 .. 5;
>  I : INTEGER;
>  J : CONSTRAINED_INT;
>  X : array(CONSTRAINED_INT) of INTEGER;
>begin
>  for I in CONSTRAINED_INT'RANGE loop

GNAT also ought to warn that this I is different from the one declared
above, since the for loop automatically declares a new I!  ;-)

Robert asks Bob:

do you *really* want a warning here? I could see a warning saying that
the outer I is unreferenced if it was (but in fact it was referenced),
or that it was uninitialized (which it was, and in fact I think we 
should have been able to give the usual warning for this, I didn't
check, because I don't have the whole original post).

But just the fact that you are using two different I's does not seem
to warrant a warning to me!

Bob, what exactly did you have in mind?