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-Thread: 103376,f494beedc5085953 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Obtaining access to protected object Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <50e41b3b-ac4a-4cb8-8bcb-ba4d9a1b28e7@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> References: <72741a06-d96c-4f53-a80b-3595c513efa1@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <247f4dc5-44d8-4618-9fdf-140286ac8d0e@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1215640628 24956 127.0.0.1 (9 Jul 2008 21:57:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1058 Date: 2008-07-09T14:57:08-07:00 List-Id: On Jul 9, 2:21 pm, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > On 9 Lip, 17:03, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > It's a compiler bug. > > Reported to bugzilla. > I cannot believe nobody [*] tried it before. > > [*] What about ACATS? My code example looks like a unit test derived > directly from AARM. There's plenty that ACATS can't test. The ACATS tries to test every rule in the RM, but it doesn't try to test every possible combination of rules that could interact---that would be impossibly hard. In fact, I just tried this on a *task* type, rather than a protected type, and it works fine. So if ACATS has a test that tests the "current instance" rule, that would be considered good enough; if a compiler handles current instances correctly in some cases but not others, the ACATS isn't designed to catch all of those problems. -- Adam