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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	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 10.224.177.12 with SMTP id bg12mr11652510qab.0.1343792009736;
        Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.77.1 with SMTP id o1mr2961902paw.29.1343789444521;
        Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 a15ni14729222qag.0!nntp.google.com!h9no3223785pbv.0!news-out.google.com!g9ni9632822pbo.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Markus_Sch=F6pflin?= <no.spam@spam.spam>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Differences in finalization of controlled objects between gcc
 4.6 and gcc 4.7
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:02:19 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jutedp$25m$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org> <juahis$gjb$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MdpKeRr+sx3LK7JQiK5aNw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-07-27T09:02:19+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am 20.07.2012 04:59, schrieb Randy Brukardt:
> "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.

It turned out that GNAT Pro 7 shows the same behaviour, so I reported it to 
AdaCore. So the fix will probably end up in GCC/GNAT in the foreseeable future.

Thanks,
Markus