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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!nsc!rfg
From: rfg@nsc.nsc.com (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Dynamic Address Clauses??
Message-ID: <5140@nsc.nsc.com>
Date: 3 Jun 88 06:02:57 GMT
References: <8806011944.AA06549@ti.com>
Reply-To: rfg@nsc.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8806011944.AA06549@ti.com> LINNIG@eg.csc.ti.COM (Mike Linnig) writes:

>The following package was compiled with two compilers (DEC Ada and
>Tartan 1750a Ada).  Both allowed the declaration of X.  DEC ada
>complained about the type conversion used for the rep clause
>in ANOTHER.
>Assuming one or both is legal, what do they mean???
>

>  X: INTEGER;
>  for X use at DYNAMIC;  -- just what does this mean??

I have at least a fuzzy (but not warm) feeling as to the meaning of the code
shown above, however a very similar construction has disturbed me deeply,
to wit:

	procedure P;
	for P use at DYNAMIC;

For a true embedded system, I can understand that one may want to fix certain
routines at certain places via:

	procedure P;
	for P use at STATIC;

However I cannot envision any case in which dynamic relocation of routines
WHILE THE PROGRAM IS RUNNING would be of any benefit.  I can however
predict that such a capability might be an implementor's nightmare.
Note that 13.5(5) seem to allow (and now perhaps require?) such a
capability in all implementations!  Wow!
-- 
// Ron Guilmette		//  C++ is nice,
-- National SemiConductor	--  Ada keeps my wallet happy,
?? rfg@nsc.nsc.com		??  but there has got to be something better...