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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Error: allocation from empty storage pool
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:02:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <pi9mb5$v0n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <pi789g$8c1$1@dont-email.me> <lyin5kfzpb.fsf@pushface.org>
 <pi7gmk$riu$1@dont-email.me> <pi8fvj$gj6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:02:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="480174b3d0a72037b2e1995c2889adb2";
	logging-data="31767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FVV5Ez2oK4par+GOYwyP4"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jI8Jx0IV1FQlhjlT+afb/1Lkvw4=
In-Reply-To: <pi8fvj$gj6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53784
Date: 2018-07-13T10:02:45+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.
> 
>