Re: Error: allocation from empty storage pool

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com> wrote in message 
news:pi7gmk$riu$1@dont-email.me...
...
> I was thinking that maybe the pragma works at the access type level 
> instead of actual allocations. That is, any access type without 
> 'Storage_size => 0 or explicit allocator would fail. But reading 13.11.3 
> 6/3 it seems that it is the other way around: at the point of the access 
> type declaration either default 'Storage_Size or 'Storage_Pool is 
> determined depending on the Default_Storage_Pool value. Though I am not a 
> l-lawyer so...

Correct. But note that when Default_Storage_Pool is null, then Storage_Size 
=> 0. When Storage_Size is statically zero, allocators are illegal 
(4.8(5.4/3)), as are calls on instances of Unchecked_Deallocation 
(13.11.2(3.1/3)). It's allowed to declare such types, so that one can use 
'Access to give them values.

I don't see any language reason for an allocator to be used in your example, 
so I concur that there is a GNAT bug involved.

                                          Randy.