From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: pragma Convention() Ada2012
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2012-07-22T17:56:43-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23d960aa-3f5b-4710-aa9e-bbb1782bc54c@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a42997fc-cf8a-4cb6-a2c4-6bc6a217159b@googlegroups.com>
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:17:24 PM UTC-7, Shark8 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:00:40 PM UTC-6, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this is possible in general because the entity has
> > usually been frozen at that point.
>
> I think you're right; the Specification file *must* be able to provide the
> correct information on generating subprogram-calls, which is impacted by
> conventions, but I know you can put the convention-pragmas in the private
> section.
Yes, usually. I think Florian is confused. I'm not sure what he was thinking about, but the "private" keyword that separates the private part of a specification from the visible part doesn't freeze anything, as far as I know. When the *end* of the specification is reached, then many things that weren't frozen before become frozen, but the private part comes before that. So most Convention pragmas in the private part are OK.
-- Adam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-26 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-21 19:16 pragma Convention() Ada2012 wlan.etho0
2012-07-21 20:09 ` Niklas Holsti
2012-07-21 20:27 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2012-07-21 21:00 ` Florian Weimer
2012-07-22 5:17 ` Shark8
2012-07-23 0:56 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
2012-07-23 20:37 ` Florian Weimer
2012-07-21 20:29 ` wlan.etho0
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox