https://gcc.gnu.org/g:585ade15412ae056c5ee17c046ae6316ca5d23c1
commit r16-2420-g585ade15412ae056c5ee17c046ae6316ca5d23c1
Author: Gary Dismukes <dismu...@adacore.com>
Date: Fri Jul 11 23:30:18 2025 +0000
ada: Nested use_type_clause with "all" cancels use_type_clause with wider
scope
The compiler mishandles nested use_type_clauses in the case where the
outer one is a normal use_type_clause and the inner one has "all".
Upon leaving the scope of the inner use_type_clause, the outer one
is effectively disabled, because it's not considered redundant (and
in fact it's only partially redundant). This is fixed by testing for
the presence of a use_type_clause for the same type that has a wider
scope when ending the inner use_type_clause.
gcc/ada/ChangeLog:
* sem_ch8.adb (End_Use_Type): Add a test for there not being an
earlier
use_type_clause for the same type as an additional criterion for
turning
off In_Use and Current_Use_Clause.
Diff:
---
gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb
index 54066b4f23ea..e6ef65860d63 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb
@@ -5444,7 +5444,15 @@ package body Sem_Ch8 is
elsif In_Open_Scopes (Scope (Base_Type (T))) then
null;
- elsif not Redundant_Use (Id) then
+ -- Turn off the use_type_clause on the type unless the clause is
+ -- redundant, or there's a previous use_type_clause. (The case where
+ -- a use_type_clause without "all" is followed by one with "all" in
+ -- a more nested scope is not considered redundant, necessitating
+ -- the test for a previous clause. One might expect the latter test
+ -- to suffice, but it turns out there are cases where Redundant_Use
+ -- is set, but Prev_Use_Clause is not set. ???)
+
+ elsif not Redundant_Use (Id) and then No (Prev_Use_Clause (N)) then
Set_In_Use (T, False);
Set_In_Use (Base_Type (T), False);
Set_Current_Use_Clause (T, Empty);
