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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f188b1cd9c1f24dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: 1998/04/05
Message-ID: <matthew_heaney-ya023680000504982157020001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 341254289
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <6g9d2o$tfg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: Network Intensive
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <6g9d2o$tfg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Mark.Rutten@dsto.defence.gov.au wrote:

>I'm using GNAT3.09 on WindowsNT (and also Solaris, but I didn't get
>this problem).
>
>I compiled a procedure call similar to the following
>
>  proc(func_one,func_two);
>
>The program relies on func_one being called _before_ func_two. But
>at run-time the code above did the opposite! Is this a bug (and if so, has it
>been fixed in 3.10)? Or is there something written in the language definition
>to justify this behaviour?

No, this is not a bug.  The language does not mandate an order of
evaluation of parameters.

There is a very simple fix:

declare
   Arg1 : constant Arg1Type := Func_One;
   Arg2 : constant Arg2Type := Func_Two;
begin
   proc (Arg1, Arg2);
end;