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: 103376,6a3ccb375568d2f6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Niklas Holsti <nholsti@icon.fi>
Subject: Re: Preelaborable address clause?
Date: 1999/02/10
Message-ID: <36C20210.4C8B494B@icon.fi>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 442964120
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <36C19FED.3628666A@praxis-cs.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: read1.inet.fi 918682721 194.252.1.17 (Wed,
 10 Feb 1999 23:38:41 EET DST)
Organization: Space Systems Finland Ltd
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:38:41 EET DST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Rod Chapman wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know if it's possible to construct a Pre-Elaborable
> Address representation clause?
> 
> I find that
> 
>   A : Integer
>   for A'Address use System.Storage_Elements.To_Address(16#00001000#);
> 
> if rejected when pragma Preelaboreate is applied to the enclosing
> unit, since To_Address is not a static function (LRM 10.2.1(7))

Probably you already rejected this possibility, but I'll state
it anyway: if System.Address is not a private type on your system,
you could supply a direct literal of that type, instead of a
To_Address conversion. Of course, it would not be portable.

Niklas Holsti
Working at but not speaking for Space Systems Finland Ltd.