From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
Subject: Re: Is this definition legal?
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:21:13 +0200
Date: 2004-09-19T22:23:48+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87brg2j9hi.fsf@insalien.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: hog3d.3614$d5.28171@newsb.telia.net
Björn Persson writes:
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
>> Whether or not your code is legal, a bug box is a bug. I would be
>> interested in a short test case for each of your issues (one for the
>> bug box upon declaring a Character_Encoding without an initialiser;
>
> That one is easy:
[elided]
It compiles fine with gnat_3.15p-12 on Debian, but gives the bug box
with 3.4.2-2.
I added comments to that effect in Bugzilla, and also attached your
shorter test case.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-19 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-18 23:29 Is this definition legal? Björn Persson
2004-09-18 23:44 ` Ludovic Brenta
2004-09-19 14:07 ` Björn Persson
2004-09-19 20:21 ` Ludovic Brenta [this message]
2004-09-23 21:18 ` Björn Persson
2004-09-19 14:17 ` Björn Persson
2004-09-19 8:42 ` Martin Krischik
2004-09-19 11:25 ` Simon Wright
2004-09-20 7:32 ` Martin Krischik
2004-09-20 13:44 ` Björn Persson
2004-09-20 16:01 ` Martin Krischik
2004-09-20 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-09-20 17:12 ` Florian Weimer
2004-09-21 7:58 ` Martin Krischik
2004-09-19 11:30 ` Simon Wright
2004-09-19 11:53 ` Martin Dowie
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox