diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | gcc/ada/exp_ch9.adb | 29 |
1 files changed, 29 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_ch9.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_ch9.adb index 651ca1f..0b06ce5 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/exp_ch9.adb +++ b/gcc/ada/exp_ch9.adb @@ -3933,6 +3933,13 @@ package body Exp_Ch9 is Set_Is_Eliminated (New_Id, Is_Eliminated (Def_Id)); + -- It seems we should set Has_Nested_Subprogram here, but instead we + -- currently set it in Expand_N_Protected_Body, because the entity + -- created here isn't the one that Corresponding_Spec of the body + -- will later be set to, and that's the entity where it's needed. ??? + + Set_Has_Nested_Subprogram (New_Id, Has_Nested_Subprogram (Def_Id)); + if Nkind (Specification (Decl)) = N_Procedure_Specification then New_Spec := Make_Procedure_Specification (Loc, @@ -8716,10 +8723,32 @@ package body Exp_Ch9 is Current_Node := New_Op_Body; Analyze (New_Op_Body); + -- When the original protected body has nested subprograms, + -- the new body also has them, so set the flag accordingly + -- and reset the scopes of the top-level nested subprograms + -- and other declaration entities so that they now refer to + -- the new body's entity. (It would preferable to do this + -- within Build_Protected_Sub_Specification, which is called + -- from Build_Unprotected_Subprogram_Body, but the needed + -- subprogram entity isn't available via Corresponding_Spec + -- until after the above Analyze call.) + + if Has_Nested_Subprogram (Corresponding_Spec (Op_Body)) then + Set_Has_Nested_Subprogram + (Corresponding_Spec (New_Op_Body)); + + Reset_Scopes_To + (New_Op_Body, Corresponding_Spec (New_Op_Body)); + end if; + -- Build the corresponding protected operation. This is -- needed only if this is a public or private operation of -- the type. + -- Why do we need to test for Corresponding_Spec being + -- present here when it's assumed to be set further above + -- in the Is_Eliminated test??? + if Present (Corresponding_Spec (Op_Body)) then Op_Decl := Unit_Declaration_Node (Corresponding_Spec (Op_Body)); |