This patch removes a spurious elaboration warning on some calls to
postconditions. Such a call always appears within an enclosing body, and as
such is not subject to an elaboration check, but the call that is inserted
after the final (inserted) return statement in a procedure body is analyzed
in the enclosing context, which may be a compilation unit. Such a call is
now properly handled.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2014-08-04 Ed Schonberg <schonb...@adacore.com>
* sem_elab.adb (Check_Elab_Call): Do not check a call to a
postcondtion.
* exp_ch6.adb (Expand_Call): Clarify handling of inserted
postcondition call.
Index: sem_elab.adb
===================================================================
--- sem_elab.adb (revision 213536)
+++ sem_elab.adb (working copy)
@@ -1218,6 +1218,17 @@
return;
end if;
+ -- Nothing to do if this is a call to a postcondition, which is always
+ -- within a subprogram body, even though the current scope may be the
+ -- enclosing scope of the subprogram.
+
+ if Nkind (N) = N_Procedure_Call_Statement
+ and then Is_Entity_Name (Name (N))
+ and then Chars (Entity (Name (N))) = Name_uPostconditions
+ then
+ return;
+ end if;
+
-- Here we have a call at elaboration time which must be checked
if Debug_Flag_LL then
Index: exp_ch6.adb
===================================================================
--- exp_ch6.adb (revision 213567)
+++ exp_ch6.adb (working copy)
@@ -5209,6 +5209,13 @@
-- Analyze call, but something goes wrong in some weird cases
-- and it is not worth worrying about ???
+ -- The return statement is handled properly, and the call to
+ -- the postcondition, inserted below, does not require
+ -- information from the body either. However, that call is
+ -- analyzed in the enclosing scope, and an elaboration check
+ -- might improperly be added to it. A guard in sem_elab is
+ -- needed to prevent that spurious check, see Check_Elab_Call.
+
Append_To (S, Rtn);
Set_Analyzed (Rtn);
