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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,814577151c84863d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-17 02:17:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.newsland.it!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Lionel.DRAGHI@fr.thalesgroup.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: which compiler is right? Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:16:11 +0100 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1079518605 15573 212.85.156.195 (17 Mar 2004 10:16:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:16:45 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6370 Date: 2004-03-17T11:16:11+01:00 | -----Message d'origine----- | De: Randy Brukardt [mailto:randy@rrsoftware.com] ... | | "Which compiler is right?" | | Typically, that's irrelevant. You have to avoid any construct | that doesn't | work with any of the compilers, because the turn-around time | for a fix is | too long to wait for. (That's especially true for something | like Claw.) | Anyway... Typically, yes, but not in my case. Because of projects roadmap, I have the possibility to wait for ObjectAda fixes. But if GNAT is wrong accepting this code, then I must change it now. And also (like for the other anectotical example I posted yesterday), even if it's easy to avoid, I don't want the Ada compilers I am using disagreeing on Ada semantics. ... | I think the program is illegal, but certainly not for the reasons that | ObjectAda is reporting. But perhaps this is one of the cases | where something | completely unrelated is fixing a bug elsewhere in the | language (because I | cannot figure out a reason for it to be illegal other than | freezing - which | has nothing to do with this). | | The inherited Priority routine is primitive by 3.2.3. 8.3 | then says that the | new declaration overrides it. Of course, this is bogus, | because the type is | not even declared in this scope, so any such overriding has | to be illegal. | But I can't find any reason for that. OA says that the type | is frozen, but | there really isn't any reason to assume that (and that may | not be true in | Ada 2005 anyway). Even if the type was not frozen, we'd still | want this to | be illegal. | Thank you Randy for your analysis. | Looks like Ada-Comment material to me. Should I just send an informal mail, like the one I posted on cla? Maybe with the underlying problem that lead to this code? -- Lionel Draghi