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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e01fe1b326df26d4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Division by zero
Date: 12 Jun 2005 08:21:04 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccfyvn6a1b.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <GiIqe.6662$U4.962926@news.xtra.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1118578864 20804 192.74.137.71 (12 Jun 2005 12:21:04
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:21:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11298
Date: 2005-06-12T08:21:04-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Lurker" <nowhere@nothing.com> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm curios about the problem which I discovered by accident.
> The code below is of course very much reduced to show
> the it:
> 
> function x(a: integer) return integer is
> 
> some_constant: constant := 0;
> 
> begin
> 
> -- return 1/some_constant; -- line 1
> 
> -- return a/some_constant; -- line 2
> 
> end;

Static expressions that raise exceptions are illegal,
so the compiler must give an error on line 1.

The compiler should complain about line 2
(a "warning" or some such), but it is not required to
by the Standard.

> If line 1 is uncommented compiler (Gnat 3.15 for Widows)
> 
> produces the expected error about division by zero.
> 
> If line 2 is uncommented it passes compilation with no problem.
> 
> Surely that's not right? Or did I miss something?

This behavior conforms to the RM.  But I suspect that
if you sent a bug report about line 2, the implementer
will fix it -- it's an obvious and easy-to-detect case
that is most likely an error.

- Bob