Re: Elaboration_check For Instantiations

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Charlie said

<<     Now that doesn't quite apply to the current case, because the RM
allows the programmer's "suggestion" to be ignored.  Nevertheless, it's
very close in spirit.  The existence of Suppress(Elaboration_check)
strongly indicates that the programmer wants the check suppressed, as
does Suppress(Range_check).  Any argument about erroneousness that is
applicable to the former can also be made for the latter.>>

You are really trying hard to spread disinformation and confusion here :-)

Yes, of course the comments about erroneousness of course apply to
suppressing elaboration checks and suppressing range checks.

If you say

pragma Suppress (Elaboration_Check);

You are telling the compiler: I have analyzed my program carefully and I
am sure that there are no instances of access before elaboration. I am sure
enough that you may consider any instance of such access to be erroneous,
and do whatever you like. I hope you will be able to use this information
I am supplying to improve the quality of the generated code.

It sounds like Charlie thinks that the statement means something like

I really don't want you to check for access before elaboration. I want
you to skip that check, and then carry on and do the "right thing". The
trouble is that there is not the slightest hint in the RM of what the
"right thing" might be here, since the RM gives not the slightest clue
of the semantics of such a situation.

Charlie, you really need to adjust your whole view of pragma Suppress.
It is completely wrong!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies