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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2866100c9a2b8ce7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Free'ing extended types
Date: 1996/04/29
Message-ID: <dewar.830797117@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152089916
references: <3183AC75.335C@ehs.ericsson.se> <dewar.830716817@schonberg>
 <3184803D.1208@ehs.ericsson.se> <DqMH63.Jvw@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff said

"Robert is correct in general about erroneousness, but in *this* case,
the RM actually says that it's erroneous on some implementations, and
not others."

Yes indeed, it can be implementation dependent whether or not the semantics
leads to erroneous execution in the case where the semantics is itself
deliberately implementation dependent as in this case.

What I was saying was that you can never look to the actual code in
the implementation to determine this, though you could look to annex M.