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,e1d728aa632a5b94
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr21920181pbc.8.1341855175577;
        Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11215pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat: broken dispatch tables for interface types ?
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:32:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2y5mszvp5.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
References: <c231a9b2-8fb7-41ab-98a2-72173a08f66c@googlegroups.com>
	<19yhfqeqkm9kc$.fcax7yetctwy$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<77fa1487-e67d-4660-9073-f4edec4295bf@googlegroups.com>
	<acd97580-e0cd-4ed9-9b66-026019da503d@googlegroups.com>
	<1x0xui2k9bjoi.acdcm0afix9u.dlg@40tude.net>
	<m24nph1diw.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
	<to9eaae5zm7b$.1p192u4vtogb3$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="xdR+M82wpvuVwH9XwXKBMw";
	logging-data="24371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TPbMR9CuIg9kgshmtxJo+uEOteGsso9Y="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:72PbnDK3JwfGKlPzVBLxt6Z0e8s=
	sha1:MAbBEI1CX0+K95EPCODOwGXIpEM=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2012-07-09T18:32:54+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:37:11 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 
>>> One thing though is that you should not derive new tagged types in
>>> bodies.
>> 
>> As a matter of interest, why not?
>
> It does not work well. I never analyzed the RM for the cases when the type
> of an object could die before the object itself. But I certainly prefer not
> to tease GNAT with these.

Perhaps you meant in subprogram bodies? I don't see how the life of a
type declared in a library-level package body can die.