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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4eca860272d4832b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 03:01:53 -0600 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Static vs dynamic evaluation anomaly? References: <12shen4qjhv41a7@corp.supernews.com> <1170792077.235994.10900@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87d54mguco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1170843700.7656.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1170866664.465875.309930@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <12slifhk3sqnaca@corp.supernews.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:01:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87tzxxdnum.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cl4r89Wxu3LrZIK5yhoSite0xF8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.202.12 X-Trace: sv3-YbJxebGqj4LHUOARyduC9A/r+cyoKZyndWZA+mfoauMchAaFx6UEQLUEtn6NzTccm4gUa60JaxWaZ1F!A7E1Pa+74oM3iK+o8yqKYTNUQUoKbVhlFnTDFavrJ1vNPZU8MwQJbF9mYya9Jun0Eorvsf3yuw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9127 Date: 2007-02-08T10:01:53+01:00 List-Id: Matt Jaffe 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.