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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cbbf1799c1dc6da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2005 box (<>) rules in default values
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:59:36 +0100
Message-ID: <43CE65E8.1040307@mailinator.com>
References: <43CCAB76.6050907@mailinator.com>
 <T7dzf.154158$dP1.512644@newsc.telia.net> <43CE20CF.4080801@mailinator.com>
 <o6ilqd.0am.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net dd0hQwmm6i4UsfMjS07tmAtugHQ229DehN37nIOMUsK7N6u2I=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <o6ilqd.0am.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2521
Date: 2006-01-18T16:59:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Alex R. Mosteo a �crit :
> 
>> Bj�rn Persson wrote:
>>
>>> This appears to be corrected in GCC 4.0.2 on Gnu/Linux, as it passes 
>>> the test below. Alex, could you please compile this program and 
>>> verify that it triggers the bug in your environment? If not, you 
>>> might want to post a compilable test case that does display the error.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry the example I wrote was made up on the way. Upon reflexion, 
>> I think I always saw this problem in relation with Controlled types. 
>> Here's an example which fails with my current GPL:
>>
>> with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
>> with Ada.Finalization; use Ada.Finalization;
>>
>> procedure Bug2005 is
>>
>>    type Thing is new Controlled with record
>>       First_Component  : Integer;
>>       Second_Component : Integer;
>>       Third_Component  : Integer;
>>    end record;
>>
>>    procedure Initialize (This : in out Thing) is
>>    begin
>>       This.Third_Component := 5;
>>    end Initialize;
>>
>>    type Superthing is record
>>       Innerthing : Thing;
>>    end record;
>>
>>    Blah :          Superthing := (others => <>);
>>    Bleh :          Superthing;
>>    Blih : constant Superthing := (others => <>);
>>    Bloh : constant Superthing := (Innerthing => <>);
>>    Bluh : constant Superthing := (Innerthing =>
>>      (Controlled with others => <>));
>>
>> begin
>>    Put_Line(": Blah.Innerthing.Third_Component = " &
>>      Integer'Image(Blah.Innerthing.Third_Component));
>>    Put_Line(": Bleh.Innerthing.Third_Component = " &
>>      Integer'Image(Bleh.Innerthing.Third_Component));
>>    Put_Line(": Blih.Innerthing.Third_Component = " &
>>      Integer'Image(Blih.Innerthing.Third_Component));
>>    Put_Line(": Bloh.Innerthing.Third_Component = " &
>>      Integer'Image(Bloh.Innerthing.Third_Component));
>>    Put_Line(": Bluh.Innerthing.Third_Component = " &
>>      Integer'Image(Bluh.Innerthing.Third_Component));
>> end Bug2005;
>>
> That's totally different. Third_Component is not default-initialized, it 
> is initialized by the Initialize procedure. And Initialize is /not/ 
> called on aggregates.

Yes, I said something about it in the part not quoted. But what about 
the other RM paragraphs I've quoted? Am I misinterpreting them? Really 
exists the problem I'm suggesting?