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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6026bc2dec7a883 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Simon Wright Subject: Re: Claw & Re: ANNOUNCEMENT - GNAT 3.13p availability Date: 2000/08/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 658244300 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 References: <8n962s$42n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 966281272 nnrp-13:17784 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 Organization: At Home Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Date: 2000-08-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison writes: > In article , > tmoran@bix.com wrote: > > Gnat 3.13p has difficulty when a public primitive is overridden in > > a private part. From the Claw mailing list: > > > > >The recently released GNAT 3.13p contains an inheritance bug which > > >prevents the successful compilation of Claw (all versions). The > > It turns out that OpenToken 2.0 and earlier suffer from this same > problem. I'm curious if it really is a gnat bug though. I could see > someone making a case that since the caller's view of the routine in > question is still abstract, only dynamicly dispatching calls are legal. I wonder whether my article refers to the same problem? Seems to be in the same ballpark, but that covers a lot of ground .. > I'd be interested in a Language Laywer ruling on this. Or failing that, > I'd like to know if ACT does consider this a bug. I've put a bit of a > hack work-around in the new version of OpenToken. But if its not a > compiler bug, I should probably put in a real fix. I think the LL's are all on vacation. Hope you're having fun, guys!