Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly?

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Matt Jaffe <jaffem@cableone.net> writes:
> Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
>> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it does make a difference.  It appears that I'm using version
>>> 4.0.0.  When I use -gnato, I get the correct results; when I use -
>>> gnatp, or no flag, I get incorrect results (Text_IO displays values
>>> greater than 63, same as what Matt was seeing).
>>
>> This is a known issue. GNAT is not Ada without -gnato and -fstack-check.
> Since you say this is an already known issue, I think that means I can
> be excused from trying to figure out how to submit a bug report on it
> (which I was dutifully going to try to do, based on the suggestions
> that several others here have made).  I remain curious, however:  Is
> it a known issue for which a correction to gnat is planned? Or is it
> planned to leave it forever as a "known oddity"?  Or is the question
> as to whether or not to correct it still under debate somewhere?  I
> have no particular axe to grind here, just pure curiosity.

I agree with Simon and Adam: this is a compiler bug.  My rationale is
that -gnato is defined as enabling "overflow checks", but modular
types never overflow.  So, -gnato should have no effect on modular
types.

Since this bug has now been confirmed on several platforms, we now
know it is not specific to any one distribution, so the proper place
to submit it is http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla.  Please go ahead.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.