Re: How many Ada compiler bugs are here?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Brian Drummond" <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:jes008$q0f$1@dont-email.me...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:30:37 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote:
...
> Recalling an earlier conversation : this (visibility of private parts)
> strikes me as a candidate for submission to the ACATS suite; though it
> would surprise me if ACATS doesn't cover this in some depth already.

Keep in mind that the ACATS doesn't try to guess the errors that a compiler 
implementer might make, as that is nearly an infinite set. Rather, it tries 
to have at least one test of Legality Rule in the standard; combinations of 
multiple rules (as in this case) are not a priority.

The Ada 83 ACVC tried much hard to make such guesses. But the effect was a 
lot of rather pointless tests that tried to guess what syntax a compiler 
writer might want to allow beyond that in the Standard. All of those tests 
were removed from the Ada 95 ACVC (which became the ACATS), as their only 
value was to stress compiler syntax error correction/handling (which is not 
an intended purpose of the ACATS!). Indeed, there is rule against including 
syntax error tests in the ACATS (with an exception made for "syntax" that 
most likely will be enforced post-syntax; one example is the rules about 
others limbs in case statements).

Which is a long way to say that I don't think there is any attempt to 
declare Adjust for a limited type, and if there is, it would be an Ada 95 
C-Test in which case there would be no "overriding" involved.

                                             Randy.