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,bdf542b1399c1cbe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Elaboration of nested packages.
Date: 1997/06/22
Message-ID: <dewar.866984610@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251784955
References: <yrQ8RCAF8EqzEwgc@marnhull.demon.co.uk> <dewar.866853665@merv>
 <gJzYpGAPvGrzEwpv@marnhull.demon.co.uk>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bill Keen said (of missing elaboration checks for generic instantiations)

<<Hide it in one layer of package and it can't see the problem.>>

The ACVC tests are surprisingly weak in this area. We encountered some tests
in the DEC test suite (which is much more thorough than the ACVC suite in
some areas) and realized that early versions of GNAT had a big gap in this
checking requirement, and then looked back, and were surprised to find ZERO
tests in the ACVC suite for this.

GNAT 3.10 generates the correct tests in all cases, but it is no surprise
to me that this is a weak area, given the lack of ACVC tests. I do not know
if ACVC suite 2.1 corrects this deficiency or not.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies