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 10.236.30.226 with SMTP id k62mr8890439yha.24.1432282087948; Fri, 22 May 2015 01:08:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.25.199 with SMTP id e7mr63029igg.16.1432282087910; Fri, 22 May 2015 01:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Path: buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!z60no3165104qgd.1!news-out.google.com!kd3ni24463igb.0!nntp.google.com!j8no7774176igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:08:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.87.14.133; posting-account=gch_qAkAAAAnG6EzLAhbH2mm5rvpLHgQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.87.14.133 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8d8fdc23-f8ec-4738-b100-f6021de192a2@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNAT bugs around use of "for X'Address..." clause From: erik.shadwick@gmail.com Injection-Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:08:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193245 Date: 2015-05-22T01:08:07-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:38:37 AM UTC-7, Simon Wright wrote: > FSF GCC 4.9.1 raises a bug box (in a different place). > 5.1.0 doesn't crash, but says (as I expected) > ... > You could wait for GNAT GPL 2015, or you could try the FSF 5.1.0 at [1]. Thank you -- it successfully compiles my project without those pesky bug boxes. > > Further, what is the validity of assigning to a variable that has the > > 'Address clause on it -- is it legal and defined behaviour? > > Yes, but writing to System.Null_Address will probably not produce useful > behaviour. What you have here is an interaction between the type > invariant and the address setting. Oh most definitely. I just found it the simplest System.Address to use in the minimal example. Thanks for the link to 5.1.0, as that fully resolves my problem, and compiles all three cases without crashing.