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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: fyi, GNAT and SPARK GPL 2016 are out
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 02:14:28 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <nj0jft$aov$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <nimo81$kjj$2@gioia.aioe.org>
 <b7b10479-4cbe-49f8-8db4-29611b736cb3@googlegroups.com>
 <niuvov$kvf$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1465110845 11039 24.196.82.226 (5 Jun 2016
 07:14:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 07:14:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30612
Date: 2016-06-05T02:14:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message 
news:niuvov$kvf$1@dont-email.me...
> On 04.06.16 18:13, gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Is there an inclusion of pragma Suppress(Container_Checks) into the 
>> standard on its way ? Then the remarks such as A.18.4, 69/2 could be 
>> updated accordingly.
>
> Doesn't your workaround demonstrate just how the behavior
> shown by GNAT contradicts the one to expect from standards
> conformance? Or is -gnatp now overruling the effect which
>
>     Element (No_Element)
>
> is supposed to have?
>
> If this call is not the subject of some ACATS test, perhaps it
> should become one?

I believe that is covered by an ACATS test. But it's irrelevant in this 
case, as one runs the ACATS with a particular set of options (which 
certainly does not include -gnatp). Every compiler has options that aren't 
(strictly speaking) Standards-conforming. Don't use those if you care. ;-)

                                          Randy.