http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> --- (In reply to char...@adacore.com from comment #10) > > well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed > > to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously not > > guarantee. > > But how about this, for a fix? > > That can't be a fix, only a workaround hiding a potential issue. > > Your patch is completely changing the semantic and purpose of the test, which > is basically equivalent to removing the test altogether. > > Furthermore, you can't put a delay statement inside > a protected procedure, it's a potentially blocking operation. > > Arno Hmm, thanks. of course the delay was only meant to bring it to the point. And it generates a warning when it is in a protected block, I know. The point is, even with a short delay here the test should pass, right? What is the test supposed to do? could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added to the unmodified test case?
