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
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bdebc54a485c13a4
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr12490702pbb.2.1332538825101;
        Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 kz5ni25724pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: My first compiler bug: work around or redesign?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrnjmprdv.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
References: <slrnjmp96d.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <10kx1zr05qt9s$.ab8q1peu0ukt.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc398z5f2g.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Mda950WjNwNLAFOE7yJXQw";
	logging-data="13540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2KQEIoNCCEIwiDXie6OEX"
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6fNqk25jInYpldJsvzUi6rvc02U=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-23T21:40:21+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2012-03-23, Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
>> First, make sure your code is legal. In some cases GNAT crashes when
>> detects an error in the program. One method to find the problem is to
>> comment offending source code lines until it compiles and then twist it
>> this or that way.
>
> It's easier to use the -gnatdO switch, which is documented
> in debug.adb.

I tried compiling my code with that extra flag, and I got exactly the
same error output.

I don't know really know what conclusion to draw from there.
Documentation says it makes the compiler fail faster, I guess minimizing
the surface for potential other errors.

Anyway, I tend to believe my code to be legal, since it's very close to
the previous version that did compile and run correctly. But then again,
even small differences can affect legality...



Thanks for your help,
Natasha