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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Leap second support and ARM 9.6.1p89/2
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 23:57:16 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lrv0vc$io1$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <slrnlu2d6u.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1407387437 19201 69.95.181.76 (7 Aug 2014 04:57:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 04:57:17 +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 V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188202
Date: 2014-08-06T23:57:16-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote in message 
news:slrnlu2d6u.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu...
...
> I was quite surprised to find that on my platforms (FSF GNAT 4.9.0 on
> FreeBSD and FSF GNAT 4.8.3 on Fedora), the assertion testing Leap_Second
> is raised, which means that Leap_Second is ignored instead of raising an
> exception.
>
> I realize that 9.6.1p89/2 is under "Implementation Advice", so I guess
> that ignoring Leap_Second is allowed by the standard, right?

The definition of Time_Of and Split is what matters here. I don't think it 
was intended that Leap_Second just be ignored. The Implementation Advice 
that you reference just means that it is OK to not support Leap_Seconds at 
all (but in that case, Time_Error ought to be raised by Time_Of).

> Should I still report it as a bug somewhere?

I would. I don't see any permission to ignore the Leap_Seconds flag (as 
opposed to just not supporting it). Perhaps your program ran afoul of 
rounding or something like that, but I'd let your implementer explain.

> Can I just replace "pragma Assert (Leap_Second)" with "return False;" or
> is it even more subtle? I don't see anything about the semantics for
> systems without support for leap seconds, does it means it's undefined
> behavior?

The Implementation Advice is attempting to explain that (the part about 
Split returning False and the other similar points). It shouldn't be 
undefined, because the behavior of Time_Of and the like are defined and 
should be followed regardless of what the target does.

                         Randy.