Cleanup related to handling of allocators and compile-time-known null
expressions in GNATprove.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch4.adb (Analyze_Allocator): Fix comment.
* sem_eval.ads (Compile-Time Known Values): Likewise.diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ package body Sem_Ch4 is
-- parameters. Note that this is now a static error even if the
-- subprogram is not the main program (this is a change, in an
-- earlier version only the main program was affected, and the
- -- check had to be done in the binder.
+ -- check had to be done in the binder).
if Nkind (P) = N_Subprogram_Body
and then Nkind (Parent (P)) = N_Compilation_Unit
@@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ package body Sem_Ch4 is
Find_Type (Subtype_Mark (E));
-- Analyze the qualified expression, and apply the name resolution
- -- rule given in 4.7(3).
+ -- rule given in 4.7(3).
Analyze (E);
Type_Id := Etype (E);
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_eval.ads b/gcc/ada/sem_eval.ads
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_eval.ads
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_eval.ads
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ package Sem_Eval is
-- The expression 'C' is not static in the technical RM sense, but for many
-- simple record types, the size is in fact known at compile time. When we
-- are trying to perform compile time constant folding (for instance for
- -- expressions like C + 1, Is_Static_Expression or Is_OK_Static_Expression
+ -- expressions like C + 1), Is_Static_Expression or Is_OK_Static_Expression
-- are not the right functions to test if folding is possible. Instead, we
-- use Compile_Time_Known_Value. All static expressions that do not raise
-- constraint error (i.e. those for which Is_OK_Static_Expression is true)
