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 2002:a5d:94c6:: with SMTP id y6mr23466404ior.21.1550629958870;
        Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:32:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2081:: with SMTP id
 y1mr114322otq.4.1550629958739;
 Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!y42no38812ita.0!news-out.google.com!d79ni48itc.0!nntp.google.com!y22no38771ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:32:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <q4fbv1$2pq$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.109.61.2;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.109.61.2
References: <fd975d66-8e70-4e86-8a75-efc6061ef25c@googlegroups.com>
 <q4fbv1$2pq$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b6e6497b-8786-4d9d-8b59-bce6675169b2@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Private extension of a synchronized interface
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:32:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55596
Date: 2019-02-19T18:32:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 5:35:15 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Jere" wrote in message 
> > I'll get to my ultimate goal later, but while following various
> > rabbit trails, I came across a situation I couldn't solve.  GNAT
> > allows you to make private extensions to synchronized interfaces
> > and it allows you to complete those private extensions with
> > protected types.  I can't, however, figure out how it overrides
> > the abstract procedures and functions of the synchronized interface.
> >
> > If I don't specify an override and try to call the procedure, it complains
> > that the procedure is abstract.
> 
> This appears to be a GNAT bug, although I'm not 100% certain.
> 
> <SNIPPED Explaination
Ok, thank you!  That makes it clearer.

> 
> What I'd suggest in this case is to create a self-testing example as a 
> potential ACATS test. I'd guess that a case like this doesn't happen in the 
> ACATS, but this a fundemental enough capabilitity that is makes sense for an 
> example to be in the test suite. (Generally, we don't try to test 
> combinations of rules in the ACATS, and this is such a combination. But 
> there are cases where testing the individidual rules don't prove anything 
> about the combination, and this appears to be such a case. That is, the 
> implementation of protected type abstract rules are probably quite different 
> from the normal subprogram rules, so just testing the normal case doesn't 
> prove much. (You can find out details about writing ACATS tests at 
> http://www.ada-auth.org/acats-files/4.1/docs/UG-E.HTM, although getting 
> everything perfect is neither necessary nor likely).
> 
> Then submit the test to either the agent (agent@ada-auth.org) or to the 
> ACATS-Test@ada-auth.org mailing list. And of course report the issue to 
> AdaCore as well.
> 
I'll take a look.  I've never dealt with ACATS before directly, so this
will be new territory for me.