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 10.224.93.19 with SMTP id t19mr4358943qam.3.1380208180049;
        Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.105.133 with SMTP id gm5mr28474obb.38.1380208179988;
 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!d5no2031302qap.0!news-out.google.com!9ni338qaf.0!nntp.google.com!d5no2031294qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <62fd156b-0be2-4465-aeba-287ec9ce22e0@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=RxNzCgoAAACA5KmgtFQuaU-WaH7rjnAO
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <62fd156b-0be2-4465-aeba-287ec9ce22e0@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6aac88c1-beb4-478b-994f-4cc2eeaf2fdc@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Gnat's Handling of Record with Address Clause
From: Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:09:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:17299
Date: 2013-09-26T08:09:39-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:23:36 AM UTC-7, Eryndlia Mavourneen wrote=
:

> 2) (also for Local_Buffer)
>=20
>    invalid address clause for initialized object "Local_Buffer"
>    reference to variable "Local_Buffer_Addr" not allowed (RM 13.1(22))
>=20
> I can understand (1), and I can initialize the record's discriminant, doi=
ng away with this message; however, I do not understand that (2) says the r=
ecord is initialized, unless it is some kind of default initialization.

When two errors occur on the same line, you can't always trust all the mess=
ages.  As a compiler maintainer, my experience is that error recovery can b=
e hard.  Either the compiler just gives up and pretends the erroneous line =
doesn't exist, which could lead to inappropriate error messages later on; o=
r it tries to make some assumptions so that it can continue, but it's not a=
lways going to do that perfectly.  Plus, making sure that error messages ar=
e totally accurate in a case like this is probably one of the lower priorit=
ies of a compiler writer.

If you do add a discriminant constraint, then the compiler must generate co=
de to initialize the discriminant, so in that case the object *is* an initi=
alized object.

                               -- Adam