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: 103376,113cbde0422b98e8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why no constraint error?
Date: 1997/03/24
Message-ID: <dewar.859260057@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 228158890
References: <E7EHzv.MHq@world.std.com> <E7G5q1.J8q.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <33369ACC.41C6@magellan.bgm.link.com> <E7K3Gw.7KD@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<I don't understand the above three "No" answers -- they seem mutually
contradictory.  If "A(I) := ..." can overwrite memory that is not part
of the array A, when I is an uninitialized variable, then that's a
compiler bug.  Are you saying that GNAT does, or does not, have this
bug?  (Note that it wasn't a compiler bug in Ada 83 -- in Ada 83, it was
erroneous, whereas in Ada 95, it is a bounded error.)>>

I cannot answer for what Sam Mize is trying to say, since his post was
indeed confusing, but the fact is that GNAT does NOT overwrite memory
on an array assignment of this type ....