From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8242 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2007 13:20:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 8233 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2007 13:20:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from province.act-europe.fr (HELO province.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:20:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855021669F3; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:20:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from province.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (province.act-europe.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neSs68zlOBtN; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:20:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from cardhu.act-europe.fr (cardhu.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.168]) by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5220A1669E3; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:20:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by cardhu.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 546) id 44DE81C4; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:20:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:09:00 -0000 From: Olivier Hainque To: Samuel Tardieu Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, hainque@adacore.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ada: Remove changes to a-tasatt.adb Message-ID: <20071113132022.GA21235@cardhu.act-europe.fr> References: <2007-11-10-23-25-57+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2007-11-10-23-25-57+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00708.txt.bz2 Samuel Tardieu wrote: > The latest changes made to a-tasatt.adb caused a bug when the generic > package Ada.Task_Attributes was instantiated in a local context. > I checked in the following patch which reverts parts of my previous > commit changing 'Unchecked_Access into 'Access. The other bits were > fine. Humm, that ground for the use of 'Unchecked_Access is not obvious and I think would deserve a comment. Could you please add one ? And how did your recently suggested warning circuitry behave on this case ? Thanks in advance, Olivier