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 10.42.186.8 with SMTP id cq8mr41530412icb.21.1418830895460; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:41:35 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.96.85 with SMTP id j79mr861403qge.2.1418830895417; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:41:35 -0800 (PST) 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!h15no12630825igd.0!news-out.google.com!r1ni62qat.1!nntp.google.com!s7no8506065qap.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:41:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.113.53.162; posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.113.53.162 References: <4f547857-ea9e-4baf-a705-911fbf9c633d@googlegroups.com> <72048e0e-164a-4dce-8818-69454011a618@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Access parameters and accessibility From: sbelmont700@gmail.com Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:41:35 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2318 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3720559143 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24072 Date: 2014-12-17T07:41:35-08:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:30:57 AM UTC-5, Michael B. wrote: >=20 > If I understand you correctly this is not a compiler bug and this=20 > optional rule was just not implemented in Gnat, right? >=20 It sounds very much like a compiler bug; regardless of the mechanism that t= he compiler writer chooses to use to implement the rules of the language, i= t must in fact implement them correctly and completely (i.e. all those conv= ersions should pass, no matter if they use the model proposed in the paper,= or something else entirely). GNAT is infamous for blowing all sorts of dy= namic accessibility checks, many much more common than this convoluted edge= case, so it's not altogether shocking. But as others have said, the rules= are getting so insane that its tough to even know what the correct behavio= r ought to be, let alone whether a compiler does it (or could ever actually= hope to do it at all). Hopefully someone who knows more will verify what that code should actually= do. -sb