!standard  5.1(16)                                 13-01-14    AC95-00243/00
!standard  6.3.1(8)
!class confirmation 13-01-14
!status received no action 13-01-14
!status received 12-10-12
!subject Possible errors in the RM examples
!summary

!appendix

!topic GNAT compilation error
!reference 5.1_16b
!from Pascal Pignard 12-11-08
!discussion

If I've well coded the example 5.1_16b as the following:

      procedure Record_Result (R:Integer) is null;

      task Compute is
         entry Ent(I : out Integer; J : in Integer);
      end;

      task body Compute is
         Sum : Integer := 0;                       -- Compute.Sum
      begin
         Outer:                                      -- Compute.Outer
         for I in 1..10 loop     -- Compute.Outer.I
            Blk:                                     -- Compute.Blk
            declare
               Sum : Integer := 0;                 -- Compute.Blk.Sum
            begin
               accept Ent(I : out Integer; J : in Integer) do
                  -- Compute.Ent.I, Compute.Ent.J
                  Compute.Ent.I := Compute.Outer.I;			-- invalid prefix in selected component "I"
                  Inner:                             -- Compute.Blk.Inner
                  for J in 1..10 loop
                     -- Compute.Blk.Inner.J
                     Sum := Sum + Compute.Blk.Inner.J * Compute.Ent.J;		-- invalid prefix in selected component "J"
                  end loop Inner;
               end Ent;
               Compute.Sum := Compute.Sum + Compute.Blk.Sum;
            end Blk;
         end loop Outer;
         Record_Result(Sum);
      end Compute;

GNAT issued 2 errors on I and J from Compute.Ent:
invalid prefix in selected component "I"
invalid prefix in selected component "J"

Maybe a GNAT compilation error as it is ok with a procedure instead of an entry?
Could any body confirm?

***************************************************************

From: Edmond Schonberg
Sent: Thursday, November  8, 2012  5:20 PM

This appears to be a glitch in GNAT, thanks for the report.
[Ergo, it is not a problem with the example - Editor.]

***************************************************************

!topic Missing initial value
!reference 6.3.1 Conformance Rules
!from Pascal Pignard 12-11-18
!discussion

In the example section 8.a.1/1 the type Formal is a generic parameter of G, its
value should be also given as generic parameter: Especially, this value is
required for X:

6.3.1 Conformance Rules
<...>
8.a.1/1     Reason: Consider:
8.a.2/1         package P is
                   type Root is tagged null record;
                   procedure Proc(X: Root);
               end P;
8.a.3/1         generic
                   type Formal(<>) is new Root with private;
               package G is
                   ...
               end G;
8.a.4/1         package body G is
                   ...
                   X: Formal := ...;
                   ...
                   Proc(X); -- This is a dispatching call in Instance, because
                            -- the actual type for Formal is class-wide.
                   ...
                   -- Proc'Access would be illegal here, because it is of
                   -- convention Intrinsic, by the above rule.
               end G;
8.a.5/1         type Actual is new Root with ...;
               procedure Proc(X: Actual);
               package Instance is new G(Formal => Actual'Class);
                   -- It is legal to pass in a class-wide actual, because Formal
                   -- has unknown discriminants.

My proposal:
     generic
        type Formal(<>) is new Root with private;
        Value : Formal; --@@
     package G is
        -- ...
     end G;
     package body G is
        -- ...
        X: Formal := Value; --@@
        -- ...
     package Instance is new G(Formal => Actual'Class, Value => Actual'(Root with null record)); --@@

One more thing, GNAT don't issue error on Proc'Access:
                   -- Proc'Access would be illegal here
         Test(Proc'Access); --@@ no GNAT error ?
It is in contradiction with the comment, isn't it?

***************************************************************

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:14 AM

> In the example section 8.a.1/1 the type Formal is a generic parameter
> of G, its value should be also given as generic parameter:

Why? The source of the initial value is not important to the example. There are
a number of ways that X could be initialized, and using for a formal object is
probably the least likely. (Besides, a real program probably would be using a
formal parameter of type Formal rather than a stand-alone object.) Moreover,
this is not a complete example (as should be obvious by the "..." in it). Adding
stuff to it that is not related to the point of the example just would make it
harder to understand.

...
> One more thing, GNAT don't issue error on Proc'Access:
>                    -- Proc'Access would be illegal here
>          Test(Proc'Access); --@@ no GNAT error ?
> It is in contradiction with the comment, isn't it?

GNAT is just one implementation of Ada, and what it does on a particular program
is not particularly interesting. [Here, I'm sure AdaCore cares - Editor.] It
probably has plenty of bugs in the sorts of corner cases that are described in
AARM notes.

What would be useful is creating and submitting good ACATS-style tests for cases
that you find important that some implementation is getting wrong. Some
suggestions for creating such tests can be found in Guidelines for Test
Development in the ACATS documentation (see
http://www.ada-auth.org/acats-files/3.0/docs/UG-E.HTM). But this is the wrong
mailing list for that (send/discuss ACATS tests on ACAA@ada-auth.org).

***************************************************************