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!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Leap second support and ARM 9.6.1p89/2
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 07:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrnlu6b2r.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
References: <slrnlu2d6u.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <lrv0vc$io1$1@loke.gir.dk>
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 07:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="76a49b86bc3e16725b7cfca3d85cb4c8";
	logging-data="30940"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tcJqujGKpDbzPEl64N0kq"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ACiAyVjkG3vAKX0hPpl3uxmCrmA=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21504
Date: 2014-08-07T07:35:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

On 2014-08-07, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> "Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote in message 
> news:slrnlu2d6u.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu...
> ...
>> I was quite surprised to find that on my platforms (FSF GNAT 4.9.0 on
>> FreeBSD and FSF GNAT 4.8.3 on Fedora), the assertion testing Leap_Second
>> is raised, which means that Leap_Second is ignored instead of raising an
>> exception.
>>
>> I realize that 9.6.1p89/2 is under "Implementation Advice", so I guess
>> that ignoring Leap_Second is allowed by the standard, right?
>
> The definition of Time_Of and Split is what matters here. I don't think it 
> was intended that Leap_Second just be ignored. The Implementation Advice 
> that you reference just means that it is OK to not support Leap_Seconds at 
> all (but in that case, Time_Error ought to be raised by Time_Of).

Thanks a lot for the language-lawyering explanation.

>> Should I still report it as a bug somewhere?
>
> I would. I don't see any permission to ignore the Leap_Seconds flag (as 
> opposed to just not supporting it). Perhaps your program ran afoul of 
> rounding or something like that, but I'd let your implementer explain.

Ok, so would I. So I guess the next step is checking who is the
implementer, i.e. whether's it's AdaCore's problem or FSF's.

Would someone here with a working installation of GNAT GPL 2014 be kind
enough to test the function in the OP, and tell me whether it's
affected?


Thanks for your help,
Natasha