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: 103376,8f62275ace1d51c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: geert@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl (Geert Bosch) Subject: Re: [Q]: arrays into mmap'ed memory Date: 1996/08/31 Message-ID: <5091nc$dkp@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177850356 distribution: world references: <32249A94.4A0A@joy.ericsson.se> <507dq7$ftm@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: La Calandre Infortunee newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Norman H. Cohen (ncohen@watson.ibm.com) wrote: `` In Ada 95, another approach is to declare a constrained array type, declare an access type pointing to values of that array type, and use an instance of System.Address_To_Access_Conversions to convert the address to an access value A. '' Usually I use pragma Convention(C, The_Array_Type) as a way to inform the compiler it shouldn't store any bounds. The scary thing of just assuming the compiler doesn't store any bounds is that the standard doesn't require/suggests this AFAIK. With the convention pragma the compiler should do the same as a C compiler: not store any bouunds. If a compiler cannot do this it should give a compile-time error. What I'm curious about is what other compilers than GNAT do. Do Ada-95 compilers exist that store any meta-data with constrained types? If so, what behaviour do these compilers have when the pragma is used? Is it true that with the approach given above (including the pragma) any legal Ada compiler will have to do The Right Thing or give a compile-time error? Regards, Geert -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com -- E-Mail: geert@sun3.iaf.nl ``I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.'' Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943