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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.36.66 with SMTP id s2mr15640676qad.6.1367563396351; Thu, 02 May 2013 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.134.36 with SMTP id ph4mr132775qeb.30.1367563396288; Thu, 02 May 2013 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!m7no592453qam.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni0qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no592445qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 23:43:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.71.180.107; posting-account=P68zsgoAAABKpXKMUuwuUZ_RfBk1kZfB NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.71.180.107 References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com> <03e84773-d616-4a46-8189-93ae4ab5fcbf@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <48bce335-3651-48a1-8a7e-01a140b27748@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns. From: egilhh Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 06:43:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 2601 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181373 Date: 2013-05-02T23:43:16-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 3, 2013 3:11:35 AM UTC+2, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >=20 > Based on what I now understand, I think Shark8's original example is misb= ehaving. 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 all= ocated 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 co= mpiler bug that they're behaving differently. >=20 But 6.5(5.11/3) says that for extended return, a new nominal subtype is cre= ated 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 :) --=20 ~egilhh