From: Jesper Quorning <jesper.quorning@gmail.com>
Subject: Convention aspect stricter than before? - GNAT Community 2020
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2020-06-03T10:59:00-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3b95127-bee2-47e2-aa9d-8d0a66668c0b@googlegroups.com> (raw)
The specification below compiles with CE2019 and GPL2017 but is rejected by CE2020:
c_convention_records.ads:5:04: representation item must appear after type is fully defined
Is this expected behaviour?
CE2020 accepts the specification when pragma Convention is used as for Record_2.
Is there an Ada 2012 way to solve this without moving Private_Record out of private part or using a pragma?
/Jesper
--
package C_Convention_Records is
type Private_Record is private;
type Record_1 is record -- Line 5
Dummy : Integer;
Priv : Private_Record;
end record
with Convention => C;
type Record_2 is record
Dummy : Integer;
Priv : Private_Record;
end record;
pragma Convention (C, Record_2);
private
type Private_Record is record
Dummy : Integer;
end record
with Convention => C;
end C_Convention_Records;
next reply other threads:[~2020-06-03 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-03 17:59 Jesper Quorning [this message]
2020-06-03 18:35 ` Convention aspect stricter than before? - GNAT Community 2020 Jeffrey R. Carter
2020-08-04 13:31 ` Fabien Chouteau
2020-08-08 3:29 ` Randy Brukardt
2020-08-08 9:46 ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-10 0:15 ` Randy Brukardt
2020-08-10 6:35 ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-10 9:15 ` Simon Wright
2020-08-10 14:53 ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-11 7:18 ` Jesper Quorning
2020-08-11 7:34 ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-11 16:23 ` Jesper Quorning
2020-08-11 19:23 ` Luke A. Guest
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox