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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,43127f177a55dc41 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.43.48.202 with SMTP id ux10mr16078801icb.6.1320364126649; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Path: p6ni68130pbn.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Simon Belmont Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: limited allocated classwide types Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 16:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <0ed43f83-40e7-46d3-8cc4-e1c41f500d28@c1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.138.255 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1320364126 8484 127.0.0.1 (3 Nov 2011 23:48:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 23:48:46 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.218.138.255; posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe) Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18817 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2011-11-03T16:35:14-07:00 List-Id: To answer the first response, removing the limited type (for both the interface and implementation and, obviously, switching to 'normal' controlled) causes it to behave normally. More vexxing is that I can alter what happens in the presumably incorrect case simply by adding, removing, and reordering the functions in the spec (which smacks heavily of a mixed up vtable, to excuse the c++ terminology), which the second response more-or-less supports. Though it is satisfying to hear that this is most likely a compiler error, and not poor programming skills on my part, I can't help but feel unnerved by this. I am only months into being an Ada programmer and not trying to anything that isn't well described and ostensibly supported, so it seems odd that such a basic test case would uncover and compiler bug. Moreover, one of the points of pride is that Ada compilers are heavily tested and verified for safety critical apps, which this seems to undercut. Not to sound snarky, but I personally have never found a bug in a GPL C compiler. In either case, just to confirm, this is the "correct" way to code this? Is there any official channel for calling this a bug? Thank you again for verifying my sanity -ab