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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-28 21:33:20 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!paperboy.wellfleet.com!noc.near.net!eisner!kilgallen
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ?
Message-ID: <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner>
Date: 28 Mar 95 11:56:14 -0500
References: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk>
 <gauthier-2403951115540001@164.81.60.62> <D645uH.Dqr@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Organization: DECUServe
Date: 1995-03-28T11:56:14-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <D645uH.Dqr@nntpa.cb.att.com>, ka@socrates.hr.att.com (Kenneth Almquist) writes:
> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software) writes:
>> 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?
> 
> Pragma Atomic will suppress these optimizations.

I find no reference to Pragma Atomic in the manual for DEC Ada, which
is supposedly validated against the Ada83 standard.

Can you provide more information ?

Larry Kilgallen