From: cjrgreen@concentric.net (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable?
Date: 1999/02/23
Date: 1999-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36d3ba85.713118@nntp.concentric.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7avpi0$jke$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:52:52 GMT, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <36d2638e.6427631@nntp.concentric.net>,
> cjrgreen@concentric.net (Christopher Green) wrote:
>> It is primarily useful in situations in which alternative
>> implementations end up causing a bitwise copy. If
>> the object to be converted is large, or the conversion
>> must be done many times, this can be a win.
>
>This seems bogus to me. If you replace this by unchecked
>conversion of *pointers* (i.e. access values), NOT the
>items themselves, then there is no bit copying, and no
>inefficiency at all in the access.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The situations I'm thinking of involve conversion of
arrays of integers or pointers, large record objects,
and the like. You are surely right in that there is no
inherent reason why Unchecked_Conversion on
scalars and pointers should be inefficient.
For example, in X Window System programming,
there are many C functions that return arrays of
indefinite size (the size must be obtained through
another argument or another function call). In
this case, it is natural enough, though not fully
portable, to declare an Ada array of the actual
size and map it onto the C array with an address
clause.
In Ada 95, the package Interfaces.C.Pointers is
a better solution to this kind of problem.
--
Chris Green
Advanced Technology Center
Laguna Hills, California
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-21 0:00 Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable? Steve Doiel
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-27 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Christopher Green [this message]
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-25 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-03-01 0:00 ` dewar
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-02-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox