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 10.107.135.150 with SMTP id r22mr55828165ioi.24.1448836818045;
        Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:40:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.148.165 with SMTP id tt5mr602531obb.20.1448836818019;
 Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!mv3no7436688igc.0!news-out.google.com!l1ni1igd.0!nntp.google.com!mv3no7436685igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:40:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3d45e3ed-16ca-4018-bf7b-62830acaca03@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=109.88.54.35;
 posting-account=6m7axgkAAADBKh082FfZLdYsJ24CXYi5
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.88.54.35
References: <3d45e3ed-16ca-4018-bf7b-62830acaca03@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <726a04c8-f2eb-4f13-b5d9-b48f33ead884@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: accessibility check failed
From: Serge Robyns <serge.robyns@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 22:40:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28599
Date: 2015-11-29T14:40:17-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 19:03:28 UTC+1, Serge Robyns  wrote:
> I'm facing a "mysterious" accessibility check failed error.

I've managed to resolve my issue.  It does work without using unchecked_access.

However, during my attempts to understand I managed to create a stupid dummy program with 2 versions of implementing a store.  One does not die, the other dies with accessibility error.  I can send a zip to whomever wants to "study" it.

Here is the main specifications with the main differences:

with Abstract_Store; use Abstract_Store;

with Clients; use Clients;
with Clients.DAO; use Clients.DAO;

package Store is

   type T_Store is limited new T_Asbtract_Store with
      record
         Clients : aliased T_Client_Store;
      end record;

   overriding procedure Store_Client
     (Self   : not null access T_Store;
      Client : in              T_Client'Class);

   overriding function Get_Client
     (Self   : not null access T_Store;
      Id     : in              Integer)
      return T_Client'Class;

   type T_Store_2 is new T_Client_Store
     and T_Asbtract_Store with null record;

end Store;

T_Store does not "die" whereas T_Store_2 does on the return of Get_Client.
In the case of T_Store the overriding function for T_Store is just performing a "return Self.Clients.Get_Client (Id);"  In the case of T_Store_2 it does call the function directly through inheritance.

T_Store requires me to write use a lot of "keystrokes" (writing the redirection calls) which I was hoping to save with T_Store_2.

Serge