From: Steve Baird <ba...@adacore.com>
In the case of a call with a formal parameter of mode other than "IN"
where the corresponding actual parameter is a generalized indexing
and the indexable container has both Constant_Indexing and Variable_Indexing
aspects specified, the generalized indexing must be interpreted as a
variable indexing, not as a constant indexing. In some cases involving a
call to a prefixed view of a subprogram, this was not handled correctly.
This error results in spurious compile-time error messages saying that
the actual parameter in the call "must be a variable".
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch4.adb (Constant_Indexing_OK): As a temporary stopgap,
return False in the case of an unanalyzed prefixed-view call.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on master.
---
gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb | 18 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
index 83705b9dae1..d506944bc8d 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
@@ -8473,9 +8473,21 @@ package body Sem_Ch4 is
-- resolution does not depend on the type of the parameter that
-- includes the indexing operation.
- elsif Nkind (Parent (Par)) in N_Subprogram_Call
- and then Is_Entity_Name (Name (Parent (Par)))
- then
+ elsif Nkind (Parent (Par)) in N_Subprogram_Call then
+
+ if not Is_Entity_Name (Name (Parent (Par))) then
+
+ -- ??? We don't know what to do with an N_Selected_Component
+ -- node for a prefixed-notation call to AA.BB where AA's
+ -- type is known, but BB has not yet been resolved. In that
+ -- case, the preceding Is_Entity_Name call returns False.
+ -- Incorrectly returning False here will usually work
+ -- better than incorrectly returning True, so that's what
+ -- we do for now.
+
+ return False;
+ end if;
+
declare
Proc : Entity_Id;
--
2.42.0
