Re: 'size attribute inheritance

[mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)]

In article <EEv8xA.HqH@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A
Duff) wrote:

>This was correct behavior for Ada 83, but if it's an Ada 95 compiler, it
>has a bug.  The indexing expression must either raise C_E or P_E or else
>return some value.  It can't dump core.

Wow!  I didn't realize the language had changed that way.  (Yes, the
compiler I'm talking about is Ada 83.)

>>The developer assumed that a Constraint_Error would be raised, but as I
>>pointed out in the previous post, this is never a safe, portable assumption
>>to make.  The compiler can legally omit a range check, reasoning that since
>>Index is an object of type Itype, and Itype is the array index subtype, no
>>check is required, because Index has to be in the array's range.
>
>No longer true in Ada 95.

I figured to get this behavior you'd require support of the Safety Annex. 
I didn't know Ada 95 comes that way out of the box.

Does unitialized variable checking only apply to array index variables? 
And do you have an AARM reference?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271