Re: Erroneous code generation from GNAT or GCC?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:35:53 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)  
<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:
> If all parameters must be volatile when there address attribute is used,  
> that implies systematic copy of everything, as types defined for Ada  
> programs, are not to be volatile
Finally, this  may be seen as a kind of representation conversion, where  
copying to buffers before sending to the outside world is also required.

Beside this, I noted something from the RM:

http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05aarm/html/AA-13-8.html
> If a subprogram_body contains any code_statements, then
> within this subprogram_body the only allowed form of statement
> is a code_statement (labeled or not), the only allowed declarative_items
> are use_clauses, and no exception_handler is allowed (comments and  
> pragmas
> are allowed as usual).

This seems to mean object declarations are not allowed in this context.  
But I did use object declarations in this context and GNAT did not  
complained. Which is right and which is wrong?


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University