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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Lundin?= <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT: no visible subprogram matches the specification for "Put"
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 19:48:56 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <qnii68$rss$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1c12f540-00b8-4be8-bfc6-13ad31d9916c@googlegroups.com>
 <96d5218a-2714-40dd-988d-10c7d27a96a2@googlegroups.com>
 <665a8b5e-533e-4df6-a1c1-7a4c257ea277@googlegroups.com>
 <50fceebb-c48e-4b38-b0f5-2318672a70c1@googlegroups.com>
 <58103920-4692-46b8-9426-e5a85fa04e77@googlegroups.com>
 <1516f9bd-4790-45be-af7a-8df61022a495@googlegroups.com>
 <910cbe74-b78b-460a-94e3-6eee002fb9a4@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:48:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="a59d93a4aaec8d05669c9fccd9b7315b";
	logging-data="28572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19R2UtfmktMJATj/ufw+WOd"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zpkqbl6zPua1vvmfmIRJUVoFZ5o=
In-Reply-To: <910cbe74-b78b-460a-94e3-6eee002fb9a4@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57267
Date: 2019-10-08T19:48:56+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Den 2019-10-08 kl. 16:53, skrev Optikos:
> Because you can clearly demonstrate 2 different compiler-vendors' diametrically opposing interpretation of the AARM's current wording on this topic, you •must•* submit an AI to the ARG to clarify this.  Hopefully, they will wholeheartedly endorse the ObjectAda interpretation, unless further evidence & reasoning reveals that GNAT's apparent bug is actually the wiser interpretation for some useful purpose.

That code works with one compiler and not with another does not 
automatically mean that the working one is correct.

Migrating to gnat from ObjectaAda and Verdix compilers in 2003/2004 I 
complained to AdaCore about our processes crashing upon start with when 
compiled with gnat.
The issue was related to elaboration

As we have a support contract, the code was looked into by AdaCore,
and they said it was bad code.

Then we argued that it does work with both ObjectAda and with Verdix,
and had been working for many years.

I still remember Robert Dewar's reply.

"You are lucky it works. Your program is highly erroneous"

End of story.
We had to add some pragma Elaborate_all in order to get it working.

And I think gnat was right and the other compilers were wrong.


-- 
Björn