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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5d4ade2fd8fd67c6,start
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Legit Warnings or not
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <531193e0-3305-4292-9ed8-0176226c1d00@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.32.224.34
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1311201015 9585 127.0.0.1 (20 Jul 2011 22:30:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=149.32.224.34;
 posting-account=Qh2kiQoAAADpCLlhT_KTYoGO8dU3n4I6
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCNK
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20251
Date: 2011-07-20T15:30:10-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

package Warnings_Legit is

   type Warned_Person (Size : Positive := 10) is -- Warnings issued
here
      record
         Name : String (1 .. Size);
      end record;

   type Acceptable_Person (Size : Positive) is
      record
         Name : String (1 .. Size);
      end record;

end Warnings_Legit;

The code segment above triggers a warnings message 'creation of
"Warned_Person" object may raise Storage_Error' at line 3 as marked.
However, no warnings is issued at line 8. The difference between them
is default discriminant. I am using GNAT-GPL-2011.

Is this warnings legitimate? If yes, why line 8 is OK. Otherwise,
should it be a bug?

Anh Vo