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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,610e53a911ec64b3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Importing C Structures Date: 1995/04/07 Message-ID: <1995Apr7.080930.9606@eisner.decus.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100070391 references: <3kr4q3$jd9@newsflash.concordia.ca> <1995Mar26.081652.9489@eisner> <19950327.180750.74@banana.demon.co.uk> organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <19950327.180750.74@banana.demon.co.uk>, kevq@banana.demon.co.uk (Kevin F. Quinn) writes: > In article <1995Mar26.081652.9489@eisner>, > kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software) wrote: > > > For an address representation clause, which might be used to access hardware, > > optimizing out dead assignments seems quite inappropriate. Is there no > > Ada83 method of avoiding such an optimization for such objects? > Most compilers I've used have a "pragma Volatile" or similar, which > marks a variable so that the optimiser leaves it in memory. If your Oh, the compiler I use has lots of that stuff, but it is printed in blue ink (non-standard) and this seems such a basic concept (for a language that provides Address clauses at all) that I was hoping for a standard method. Since one is looking at machine addresses, the code is by definition non-portable, but recent experience in another language has made me hyper-sensitive to vendor-specific enhancements. If someday there were a second compiler vendor for the platform, standard syntax might be useful. Larry Kilgallen