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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d40525238a7131e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.13.102 with SMTP id g6mr194751pbc.1.1316239162377;
        Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 m9ni8020pbd.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tornevall.net!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada.Calendar.Formatting bug in GNAT?
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:59:18 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <j51cvo$kfs$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <e781c174-04fe-4445-9788-c6f619439c5d@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1316239161 20988 69.95.181.76 (17 Sep 2011 05:59:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 05:59:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17996
Date: 2011-09-17T00:59:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e781c174-04fe-4445-9788-c6f619439c5d@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
...
> I have an additional question, though: why the constraints of
> Day_Duration were not detected at the point of call to Split, but
> rather later on with explicit test on Seconds'Valid? My understanding
> is that this should be checked at the point of call to Split, so that
> additional checks inside Split should not be necessary. A possible
> explanation is that the library was compiled with checks disabled and
> the explicit test was added to cover up for this, but maybe I'm
> missing something here.

My understanding is that the GNAT runtime is always compiled with checks 
turned off, so I presume they write explicit checks whenever they are 
needed. (We do something similar for the Janus/Ada runtime.)

As for the original problem, it surely sounds like a bug.

                         Randy.