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: 103376,68536605ede13a20,start
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.189.194 with SMTP id gk2mr12373648pbc.3.1324149441288;
        Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni33922pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Simon Belmont <sbelmont700@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: GNAT - return by anonymous access
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:17:20 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <784c67eb-a542-41b0-b23d-fca1234e56b2@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.138.255
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1324149441 19095 127.0.0.1 (17 Dec 2011 19:17:21
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:17:21 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.218.138.255;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2011-12-17T11:17:20-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


This ostensibly simple program prints strange results, and i'm rapidly
losing faith in the GNAT compiler (GNAT GPL 20110428).  If anyone with
an alternative compiler can confirm or deny this output as spurious, I
would be much obliged.  In short, when the declaration of 'bar' is
commented out, the program behaves as i would expect (output is '42'),
but when bar is present, the output is much different (output is
'4409264').  Or, if my line of reasoning is mixed up and this is
actually the appropriate behavior, I would be grateful for any
explanation.

Thank you again

-sb

-- Unit 1
package test_package is
   type test_type (p_obj : access Integer) is limited private;
   function get return test_type;

private
   type test_type (p_obj : access Integer) is limited null record;

end test_package;

-- Unit 2
package body test_package is

   function get return test_type is
   begin
      return test_type'(p_obj => new Integer'(42));
   end get;

end test_package;

-- Unit 3
with test_package;
with Text_IO;

procedure test_driver is

   foo : test_package.test_type := test_package.get;

   -- Removed : '42' (expected)
   -- Present : '4409264'
   bar : access Integer := new Integer'(69);

begin

   Text_IO.Put_Line(foo.p_obj.all'img);

end test_driver;