From: "Egil H. H�vik" <egil.harald.hoevik@remove.this.kongsberg.com>
Subject: Re: Compiler bug or illegal code for entry_family?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:26:34 +0200
Date: 2004-03-31T13:26:34+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <406aa7e0@193.71.169.73> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrnc6l7tq.nu.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de
"Lutz Donnerhacke" <lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote in message
news:slrnc6l7tq.nu.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de...
> procedure gnat_gigi_116 is
>
<snip>
>
> Should I submit a bug report or fix my code?
This is a bug, and has been fixed in newer versions of gnat
(at least in 3.16a1 and 5.01a)
> Obvious fix:
an even more obvious fix:
> procedure gnat_gigi_116 is
> type Entries is range 1 .. 16;
>
> protected type X is
entry Call(Entries);
> end X;
>
> protected body X is
entry Call(for e in Entries)
> when True is
i : Entries;
> begin
i := e;
> end Call;
> end X;
> begin
> null;
> end gnat_gigi_116;
~egilhh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-31 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-31 10:38 Compiler bug or illegal code for entry_family? Lutz Donnerhacke
2004-03-31 11:26 ` Egil H. H�vik [this message]
2004-03-31 11:34 ` Lutz Donnerhacke
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox