Re: Error: allocation from empty storage pool

["Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>]

On 12/07/2018 23:08, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "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.

I reported it yesterday and I just got confirmation that it is a bug.

Thanks,
Álex.

> 
>                                            Randy.
> 
>