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: 103376,5f9c25380ec58962
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.75.170 with SMTP id d10mr5671602pbw.6.1326647719095;
        Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni185551pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Elaboration circularity with generics
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <9e273746-1663-4fef-9154-f37a25d3c01b@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
References: <583b1bfe-95bd-4669-b16b-c733c81e8f88@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
 <1007811599348271064.048391rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.3.40.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1326647718 24083 127.0.0.1 (15 Jan 2012 17:15:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.3.40.82;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-01-15T09:15:18-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 14, 11:01=A0pm, Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauh...@maps.arcor.de>
wrote:

> So I guess the circularity is a consequence of
> GNAT's default, static elaboration order algorithm.

Does it mean that the compiler can refuse legal code just because its
internal algorithm is biased?
As I understand, there is no language-related reason for the
circularity. That is, there is no ARM paragraph that would say that in
this particular program there will be a cyclic elaboration dependency
(otherwise I would appreciate some pointers).

In such a case I would consider it to be a compiler bug.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com