From: Steve Baird <ba...@adacore.com>
In some cases, an expanded name refering to a predefined operator (such as
Some_Package."+") occurring in a static expression function would be
incorrectly rejected with a message saying that the operator is not directly
visible (which, while True, does not make the reference illegal).
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch4.adb (Is_Effectively_Visible_Opertor): Return True if
Checking_Potentially_Static_Expression is True. The accompanying
comment says True is returned "if there is a reason it is ok for
Is_Visible_Operator to return False"; if
Checking_Potentially_Static_Expression is true, that is such a
reason.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on master.
---
gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
index 2281ef9ce71..fc3a2a43c3c 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
@@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ package body Sem_Ch4 is
(N /= Original_Node (N)
and then Is_Effectively_Visible_Operator
(N => Original_Node (N), Typ => Typ))
+ or else Checking_Potentially_Static_Expression
or else not Comes_From_Source (N));
-- Return True iff either Is_Visible_Operator returns True or if
-- there is a reason it is ok for Is_Visible_Operator to return False.
--
2.45.2
