exp_prag.adb, [...]: Minor reformatting.

2011-11-21  Robert Dewar  <dewar@adacore.com>

	* exp_prag.adb, exp_util.adb, sinfo.ads, sem_res.adb, s-stposu.adb,
	sem_attr.adb, s-stposu.ads, s-taprop-solaris.adb, s-taprop-irix.adb,
	sem_ch6.adb: Minor reformatting.

From-SVN: r181580

gcc/ada/ChangeLog

+2011-11-21  Robert Dewar  <dewar@adacore.com>
+
+	* exp_prag.adb, exp_util.adb, sinfo.ads, sem_res.adb, s-stposu.adb,
+	sem_attr.adb, s-stposu.ads, s-taprop-solaris.adb, s-taprop-irix.adb,
+	sem_ch6.adb: Minor reformatting.
+
 2011-11-21  Arnaud Charlet  <charlet@adacore.com>
 
 	* s-taprop-irix.adb, s-taprop-solaris.adb (Create_Task): Use

gcc/ada/exp_prag.adb

@@ -270,10 +270,17 @@ package body Exp_Prag is
 
    procedure Expand_Pragma_Check (N : Node_Id) is
       Cond : constant Node_Id    := Arg2 (N);
-      Loc  : constant Source_Ptr := Sloc (First_Node (Cond));
       Nam  : constant Name_Id    := Chars (Arg1 (N));
       Msg  : Node_Id;
 
+      Loc  : constant Source_Ptr := Sloc (First_Node (Cond));
+      --  Source location used in the case of a failed assertion. Note that
+      --  the source location of the expression is not usually the best choice
+      --  here. For example, it gets located on the last AND keyword in a
+      --  chain of boolean expressiond AND'ed together. It is best to put the
+      --  message on the first character of the assertion, which is the effect
+      --  of the First_Node call here.
+
    begin
       --  We already know that this check is enabled, because otherwise the
       --  semantic pass dealt with rewriting the assertion (see Sem_Prag)

gcc/ada/exp_util.adb

@@ -6425,6 +6425,9 @@ package body Exp_Util is
       --  Instead, formal verification is performed only on those expressions
       --  provably side-effect free.
 
+      --  Why? Is the Alfa mode test just an optimization? Most likely not,
+      --  most likely it is functionally necessary, if so why ???
+
       if not Full_Expander_Active then
          return;
 

gcc/ada/s-taprop-irix.adb

@@ -836,6 +836,12 @@ package body System.Task_Primitives.Operations is
       --  do not need to manipulate caller's signal mask at this point.
       --  All tasks in RTS will have All_Tasks_Mask initially.
 
+      --  Note: the use of Unrestricted_Access in the following call is needed
+      --  because otherwise we have an error of getting a access-to-volatile
+      --  value which points to a non-volatile object. But in this case it is
+      --  safe to do this, since we know we have no problems with aliasing and
+      --  Unrestricted_Access bypasses this check.
+
       Result :=
         pthread_create
           (T.Common.LL.Thread'Unrestricted_Access,
@@ -865,6 +871,12 @@ package body System.Task_Primitives.Operations is
              (Attributes'Access, To_Int (T.Common.Task_Info.Scope));
          pragma Assert (Result = 0);
 
+         --  Note: the use of Unrestricted_Access in the following call
+         --  is needed because otherwise we have an error of getting a
+         --  access-to-volatile value which points to a non-volatile object.
+         --  But in this case it is safe to do this, since we know we have no
+         --  aliasing problems and Unrestricted_Access bypasses this check.
+
          Result :=
            pthread_create
              (T.Common.LL.Thread'Unrestricted_Access,

gcc/ada/s-taprop-solaris.adb

@@ -1005,6 +1005,12 @@ package body System.Task_Primitives.Operations is
          Opts := THR_DETACHED + THR_BOUND;
       end if;
 
+      --  Note: the use of Unrestricted_Access in the following call is needed
+      --  because otherwise we have an error of getting a access-to-volatile
+      --  value which points to a non-volatile object. But in this case it is
+      --  safe to do this, since we know we have no problems with aliasing and
+      --  Unrestricted_Access bypasses this check.
+
       Result :=
         thr_create
           (System.Null_Address,

gcc/ada/sem_attr.adb

@@ -7821,14 +7821,30 @@ package body Sem_Attr is
                         T := T / 10;
                      end loop;
 
+                  --  User declared enum type with discard names
+
+                  elsif Discard_Names (R) then
+
+                     --  If range is null, result is zero, that has already
+                     --  been dealt with, so what we need is the power of ten
+                     --  that accomodates the Pos of the largest value, which
+                     --  is the high bound of the range + one for the space.
+
+                     W := 1;
+                     T := Hi;
+                     while T /= 0 loop
+                        T := T / 10;
+                        W := W + 1;
+                     end loop;
+
                   --  Only remaining possibility is user declared enum type
+                  --  with normal case of Discard_Names not active.
 
                   else
                      pragma Assert (Is_Enumeration_Type (P_Type));
 
                      W := 0;
                      L := First_Literal (P_Type);
-
                      while Present (L) loop
 
                         --  Only pay attention to in range characters

gcc/ada/sem_ch6.adb

@@ -283,7 +283,6 @@ package body Sem_Ch6 is
       New_Spec : Node_Id;
 
    begin
-
       --  This is one of the occasions on which we transform the tree during
       --  semantic analysis. If this is a completion, transform the expression
       --  function into an equivalent subprogram body, and analyze it.
@@ -298,9 +297,7 @@ package body Sem_Ch6 is
       --  If there are previous overloadable entities with the same name,
       --  check whether any of them is completed by the expression function.
 
-      if Present (Prev)
-        and then Is_Overloadable (Prev)
-      then
+      if Present (Prev) and then Is_Overloadable (Prev) then
          Def_Id   := Analyze_Subprogram_Specification (Spec);
          Prev     := Find_Corresponding_Spec (N);
       end if;

gcc/ada/sem_res.adb

@@ -8668,6 +8668,14 @@ package body Sem_Res is
                      --  this by making sure that the expanded code points to
                      --  the Sloc of the expression, not the original pragma.
 
+                     --  Note: Use Error_Msg_F here rather than Error_Msg_N.
+                     --  The source location of the expression is not usually
+                     --  the best choice here. For example, it gets located on
+                     --  the last AND keyword in a chain of boolean expressiond
+                     --  AND'ed together. It is best to put the message on the
+                     --  first character of the assertion, which is the effect
+                     --  of the First_Node call here.
+
                      Error_Msg_F
                        ("?assertion would fail at run time!",
                         Expression
@@ -8693,7 +8701,13 @@ package body Sem_Res is
                     and then Entity (Expr) = Standard_False
                   then
                      null;
+
+                  --  Post warning
+
                   else
+                     --  Again use Error_Msg_F rather than Error_Msg_N, see
+                     --  comment above for an explanation of why we do this.
+
                      Error_Msg_F
                        ("?check would fail at run time!",
                         Expression

gcc/ada/sinfo.ads

@@ -760,6 +760,7 @@ package Sinfo is
    --    renaming declaration when it is a Renaming_As_Body. The field is Empty
    --    if there is no corresponding spec, as in the case of a subprogram body
    --    that serves as its own spec.
+   --
    --    In Ada2012, Corresponding_Spec is set on expression functions that
    --    complete a subprogram declaration.