From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d36fc3985d071e34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <nntp-2004-12@t-domaingrabbing.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pointer address
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:57:28 +0000
Message-ID: <1902346.BAagqHZ0Mk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
References: <1224531.Y4V0fVubSt@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <wp6dnZVo_NWE00ncRVn-3A@comcast.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net htK4MKHUNGjbRpvARcQFMAExJdkjeuImH8oZYRzFf+ww7IrfNv
X-Phone: +41 62 961 13 52
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7339
Date: 2004-12-31T09:57:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> translation of the (non-Windows) design.  But since cpdata.dwData is a
> variable, there could be other code like
>   cpdata.dwData = 0x0001B011;
>   cpdata.dwData = 0x0002C022;
> etc, in which case he really would need to use pointers.

Yes, agreed. (But of all the C-code that used fixed address values I've
seen yet, there was not one that used such a variable in that way.)

>>Hmm, one problem: if I change the address to 16#0001B001#, I get
>>
>>"raised PROGRAM_ERROR : temp.adb:13 misaligned address value".
>   Objects of type "access all Interfaces.C.Unsigned_Long", most likely
> have an alignment of 4,

I figured that. ;-)

> and ARM 13.3(27) says "Program execution is
> erroneous if an Address clause is given that conflicts with the
> Alignment."  16#1B001# is not a multiple of 4.

What surprised me a little bit was that GNAT didn't warn (ok, I have to
admit I didn't turn on all the warnings) or even refused to compile at
all.

>>What was the target architecture/OS of the original C-Code? Using
>>fixed addresses looks like it was assuming DOS or some other system
>>with fixed memory areas (like some microcontroller stuff). Such code
>>simply will not work with Windows.
>
>   That's a bit strong.

Ok, maybe. But even if it "works", the reason why it works might be the
wrong one...

>  The address will be interpreted as a location
> in the program's virtual address space, which might be, though
> probably isn't, what was meant.

I'd say it is very improbable that it does.

> Porting this C program to another architecture certainly requires more
> than a transliteration into Ada.

That's what I was trying to say. ;-)


Vinzent.