Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> In article <38F437C5.D525C847@newtec.de>,
>   Rainer Aigner <aigner@newtec.de> wrote:
> > And I want to make sure, that a read with the 8-bit type is
> > performed by a "load byte", and the 16-bit type by a "load
> > halfword" assembler statement.
> 
> There is absolutely NOTHING in the RM, or anywhere else that
> would imply it is appropriate to expect this usage of
> instructions, and there is nothing wrong in a compiler that
> does not follow this expectation, and there is no way to

That completle correct, and I got the problem.
My idea was, if I can overload all the other operators
and even can implement my own heap, and many more (and all by language),
maybe I have a chance to influence the assignment.
Regarding to the point, that my sw is in RISC Class 1 and code
coverage...
It would also be much less effort to validate the code. cause right now 
I have some 2000 line just with direct assembler. And it will be many
more.

Up to this point, I can live it, but couldn't it been that I just
doesn't saw
the right way?

> insist that the compiler follow this expectation.
> 
> If your code depends on this, then the ONLY legitimate way
> to achieve this is to write machine language insertions
> or instrinsics that generate the instructions you need.
> Any other solution is incorrect, and may cause significant
> difficulties in porting the application to another compiler
> or to another system.
Right now I writing code on 3 different plattforms, with 3 different
compilers.
The thing with porting to another system will be difficult for a TSAP
(Target Specific ADA Package).

> 
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.