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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interesting AWS error.
References: <GFQhw.778060$Ub6.94095@fx20.iad>
 <1i3v7l7hdsio7$.13u4nz42lklre$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1i3v7l7hdsio7$.13u4nz42lklre$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <GCZhw.744089$JH1.708688@fx08.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:26:30 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:26:29 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1905
X-Received-Body-CRC: 361183672
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23935
Date: 2014-12-10T08:26:29-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 10-Dec-14 01:43, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Consider this scenario, you get an exception somewhere. That winds the
> stack up. This causes some controlled object to finalize in some block. If
> the exception is bad, the finalization fails [*] and a second exception is
> propagated. Upon leaving Finalize that exception is converted to a third
> exception, the Program_Error one. This could repeat itself many times, so
> what you get could have nothing to do with the original issue at all.

Is this problem (finalize exception propagation) due to the language, 
making it difficult/impossible to get right? Or is it due to the 
architecture of the compiler? Or is it due to the compiler's 
code-generation? {Or a combination of all the above?}

> It likely is an induced error, the original one is swallowed. You should
> use GNAT exception tracing in order to track the original problem down,
> which could be an induced one as well.

I'll see if I can get exception-tracing to work; given that the error 
w/o it points to "declare" I'm not overly confident the results will be 
sensible, but we shall see.