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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Error: allocation from empty storage pool
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:08:03 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <pi8fvj$gj6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <pi789g$8c1$1@dont-email.me> <lyin5kfzpb.fsf@pushface.org>
 <pi7gmk$riu$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:08:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="16998"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53782
Date: 2018-07-12T16:08:03-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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.