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!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.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: Are limited interfaces deeper than non-limited ones?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:59:59 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <ocgrof$bu$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <slrnoel7u4.1m1.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1491857999 382 24.196.82.226 (10 Apr 2017
 20:59:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46568
Date: 2017-04-10T15:59:59-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

It looks to me like you've found a GNAT bug. I can't imagine why the 
accessibility of something would be different for a non-limited vs. a 
limited interface.

The rules for the details of instantiations with classwide types are pretty 
weird, so I suspect something has gone wrong in one of those instances.

                                           Randy.

"Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote in message 
news:slrnoel7u4.1m1.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu...
> Hello,
>
> I know that accessibility levels come with a host of problems, but I
> thought that static accessibility was reasonably well understood, and
> yet I encounter this very strage situation. Everything else being
> otherwise equal, everything works fine with a non-limited interface, but
> GNAT FSF v6.3.1 rejects the limited interface.
>
> Is there something wrong with my GNAT or is there really something I
> miss going on here?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Natasha
>
>
> ----- mini.ads ------
> generic
>   type Held_Data (<>) is limited private;
> package Mini is
>
>   type Holder is private;
>
>   function Create
>     (Constructor : not null access function return Held_Data)
>     return Holder;
>
> private
>
>   type Data_Access is access Held_Data;
>
>   type Holder is record
>      Ref : Data_Access;
>   end record;
>
> end Mini;
> ----- mini.adb ------
> package body Mini is
>
>   function Create
>     (Constructor : not null access function return Held_Data)
>     return Holder is
>   begin
>      return (Ref => new Held_Data'(Constructor.all));
>   end Create;
>
> end Mini;
> ----- non_lim.ads ------
> with Mini;
>
> package Non_Lim is
>
>   type Data is interface;
>
>   package Instance is new Mini (Data'Class);
>
> end Non_Lim;
> ----- lim.ads ------
> with Mini;
>
> package Lim is
>
>   type Data is limited interface;
>
>   package Instance is new Mini (Data'Class);
>
> end Lim;
>
> ----- GNAT output ------
> $ gnatmake non_lim.ads
> ada -c non_lim.ads
> ada -c mini.adb
> $ gnatmake lim.ads
> ada -c lim.ads
> lim.ads:7:04: warning: in instantiation at mini.adb:7
> lim.ads:7:04: warning: accessibility check failure
> lim.ads:7:04: warning: "Program_Error" will be raised at run time