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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,27db9c02e8783e58
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.180.100.98 with SMTP id ex2mr920872wib.4.1343267754626;
        Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.84.6 with SMTP id u6mr1236069pay.31.1343267753946;
        Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 q11ni66821147wiw.1!nntp.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!q21no227677qas.0!news-out.google.com!b9ni60429900pbl.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ctu-peer!news.nctu.edu.tw!csnews.cs.nctu.edu.tw!news.cs.nctu.edu.tw!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Differences in finalization of controlled objects between gcc 4.6
 and gcc 4.7
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:59:34 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <juahis$gjb$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1342753180 17003 69.95.181.76 (20 Jul 2012 02:59:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-07-19T21:59:34-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Markus Sch�pflin" <no.spam@spam.spam> wrote in message 
news:ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...
> What surprises me is that the objects with address 08077F90 and 08077FA0 
> are finalized twice in the second case. I'm aware that this is allowed but 
> nevertheless I'm wondering why it happens here, because up to now I was 
> thinking that only by explicitly calling finalize() or when tasks are 
> involved that this actually happens. Should I consider this a regression 
> in gcc and report it as such?

Those look like the temporary objects to me (since the array X should be 
finalized last, and these aren't that). And I don't know of any reason that 
temporaries should be finalized twice (or any reason that an implementer 
would want to do that). I think it is a bug, and you ought to report it as 
such.

                                                  Randy.