• Re: error: choice must be static?

    From Randy Brukardt@randy@rrsoftware.com to comp.lang.ada on Mon Feb 12 20:12:01 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.ada

    Looks like a compiler bug to me. The nonsense message gives that away... :-)

    Randy.

    "Blady" <p.p11@orange.fr> wrote in message
    news:uqaek7$vd8o$1@dont-email.me...
    Hello,

    I've got the following GNAT error:

    $ gcc -c -gnat2022 -gnatl 2024/test_20240211_static_choice.adb
    GNAT 13.2.0
    1. procedure test_20240211_static_choice is
    2.
    3. package Maps is
    4. type Map_Type is private
    5. with Aggregate => (Empty => Empty_Map,
    6. Add_Named => Add_To_Map);
    7. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer; Value : in String);
    8. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type;
    9. private
    10. type Map_Type is array (1..10) of String (1..10);
    11. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer; Value : in String) is null;
    12. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type := [1..10 => " "]; -- error: choice must be static
    |
    >>> error: choice must be static

    13. end;
    14.
    15. begin
    16. null;
    17. end;

    I wonder what more static it should be.
    Any clue ?

    Thanks, Pascal.

    Source code:
    procedure test_20240211_static_choice is

    package Maps is
    type Map_Type is private
    with Aggregate => (Empty => Empty_Map,
    Add_Named => Add_To_Map);
    procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer; Value : in String);
    Empty_Map : constant Map_Type;
    private
    type Map_Type is array (1..10) of String (1..10);
    procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer; Value : in String) is null;
    Empty_Map : constant Map_Type := [1..10 => " "]; --
    error: choice must be static
    end;

    begin
    null;
    end;


    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Simon Wright@simon@pushface.org to comp.lang.ada on Tue Feb 13 11:45:17 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.ada

    "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

    Looks like a compiler bug to me. The nonsense message gives that away... :-)

    GCC 14.0.1 says

    1. procedure test_20240211_static_choice is
    2.
    3. package Maps is
    4. type Map_Type is private
    5. with Aggregate => (Empty => Empty_Map,
    |
    >>> error: aspect "Aggregate" can only be applied to non-array type

    6. Add_Named => Add_To_Map);
    7. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer;
    8. Value : in String);
    9. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type;
    10. private
    11. type Map_Type is array (1..10) of String (1..10);
    12. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer;
    13. Value : in String) is null;
    14. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type := [1..10 => " "];
    |
    >>> error: choice must be static

    15. end;
    16.
    17. begin
    18. null;
    19. end;

    I think the first is because of ARM 4.3.5(2), "For a type other than an
    array type, the following type-related operational aspect may be
    specified"[1] and the second is a "nonsense" consequence.

    [1] http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/22rm/html/RM-4-3-5.html#p2
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Randy Brukardt@randy@rrsoftware.com to comp.lang.ada on Tue Feb 13 22:28:22 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.ada

    Ah, yes, didn't notice that part. One cannot give the Aggregate aspect on an array type, directly or indirectly. That's because container aggregates are designed to work like array aggregates, and we didn't want visibility to determine the interpretation of an aggregate (especially where the same
    syntax could have a different meaning in different visibility).. Thus, there can be no point where a single type can have both array aggregates and container aggregates.

    Note that record aggregates and container aggregates are always syntactally different, and thus it is OK to have both in a single location (that's one
    of the reasons that we adopted square brackets for container aggregates).
    That seemed important as the majority of private types are completed by
    record types, and not allowing record types in this context would be
    difficult to work around.

    Randy.



    "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message news:lybk8klh9u.fsf@pushface.org...
    "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

    Looks like a compiler bug to me. The nonsense message gives that away...
    :-)

    GCC 14.0.1 says

    1. procedure test_20240211_static_choice is
    2.
    3. package Maps is
    4. type Map_Type is private
    5. with Aggregate => (Empty => Empty_Map,
    |
    >>> error: aspect "Aggregate" can only be applied to non-array type

    6. Add_Named => Add_To_Map);
    7. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer;
    8. Value : in String);
    9. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type;
    10. private
    11. type Map_Type is array (1..10) of String (1..10);
    12. procedure Add_To_Map (M : in out Map_Type; Key : in Integer;
    13. Value : in String) is null;
    14. Empty_Map : constant Map_Type := [1..10 => " "];
    |
    >>> error: choice must be static

    15. end;
    16.
    17. begin
    18. null;
    19. end;

    I think the first is because of ARM 4.3.5(2), "For a type other than an
    array type, the following type-related operational aspect may be specified"[1] and the second is a "nonsense" consequence.

    [1] http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/22rm/html/RM-4-3-5.html#p2


    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Blady@p.p11@orange.fr to comp.lang.ada on Sat Feb 17 09:51:39 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.ada

    Le 14/02/2024 à 05:28, Randy Brukardt a écrit :
    Ah, yes, didn't notice that part. One cannot give the Aggregate aspect on an array type, directly or indirectly. That's because container aggregates are designed to work like array aggregates, and we didn't want visibility to determine the interpretation of an aggregate (especially where the same syntax could have a different meaning in different visibility).. Thus, there can be no point where a single type can have both array aggregates and container aggregates.

    Note that record aggregates and container aggregates are always syntactally different, and thus it is OK to have both in a single location (that's one
    of the reasons that we adopted square brackets for container aggregates). That seemed important as the majority of private types are completed by record types, and not allowing record types in this context would be difficult to work around.

    Thanks Randy for the explanation, it helps.

    Pascal.

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114