Re: Story of one GNAT bug

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Tero Koskinen" <tero.koskinen@iki.fi> wrote in message 
news:mev48i$1ih$1@loke.gir.dk...
...
> All tested GNAT versions, including GNAT GPL 2014 accepted
> the code, so clearly GNAT did not have check for RM 7.3(10.1).
...
> A week later (Feb 12), I talked to ACAA technical agent
> about the bug and possibility to add B test for the bug to
> ACATS.

You left out one step here. It turns that not only did GNAT not check the 
rule in question, but also that there was an ACATS test which expected it to 
be legal. (That probably happened in part because the test was checking a 
different rule in 7.3, and using GNAT to check whether it was correct did 
not turn up the violation of 7.3(10.1/3).)

It's also strange that there wasn't a test for that rule; I thought I had 
checked all of the new (since Ada 95) rules in 7.3 and that obviously wasn't 
true. But now it is. :-)

                                              Randy Brukardt, ACAA Technical 
Agent