In some cases where a procedure call is expected but a function is
provided such as "Interfaces.C."=" (x, y);" GNAT would not generate any
error message.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch6.adb (Analyze_Procedure_Call): Detect use of operators
in a procedure call.
* sem_util.adb: Minor edit.diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch6.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch6.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch6.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch6.adb
@@ -2014,6 +2014,10 @@ package body Sem_Ch6 is
and then Comes_From_Source (N)
then
Error_Msg_N ("missing explicit dereference in call", N);
+
+ elsif Ekind (Entity (P)) = E_Operator then
+ Error_Msg_Name_1 := Chars (P);
+ Error_Msg_N ("operator % cannot be used as a procedure", N);
end if;
Analyze_Call_And_Resolve;
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_util.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_util.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_util.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_util.adb
@@ -28605,12 +28605,12 @@ package body Sem_Util is
then
return;
- -- In an instance, there is an ongoing problem with completion of
+ -- In an instance, there is an ongoing problem with completion of
-- types derived from private types. Their structure is what Gigi
- -- expects, but the Etype is the parent type rather than the
- -- derived private type itself. Do not flag error in this case. The
- -- private completion is an entity without a parent, like an Itype.
- -- Similarly, full and partial views may be incorrect in the instance.
+ -- expects, but the Etype is the parent type rather than the derived
+ -- private type itself. Do not flag error in this case. The private
+ -- completion is an entity without a parent, like an Itype. Similarly,
+ -- full and partial views may be incorrect in the instance.
-- There is no simple way to insure that it is consistent ???
-- A similar view discrepancy can happen in an inlined body, for the
