Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns.

[egilhh <egilhovik@hotmail.com>]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 3:11:35 AM UTC+2, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > 
> Based on what I now understand, I think Shark8's original example is misbehaving.  6.5(5.3) says that the accessibility level of an anonymous-access in an extended return statement is the same as the accessibility level of the function result; and since this seems to determine what masters the allocated tasks depend on, the master for the task allocated by Make_ER should be the same as the one in Make_NR and (I think) for Make_EF.  So it's a compiler bug that they're behaving differently.
> 

But 6.5(5.11/3) says that for extended return, a new nominal subtype is created
for the return object, which seems to be different from the function result
subtype.

But then, 6.5(7/2): "If the return object has any parts that are tasks, the activation of those tasks does not occur until after the function returns"


Easy to get confused here, but I think 6.5(7/2) is (or at least should be)
the winner :)


-- 
~egilhh