Re: Dynamic Address Clauses??

[rfg@nsc.nsc.com (Ron Guilmette)]

In article <57900075@ada-uts> stt@ada-uts writes:
>
>To me it seems kind of pointless to try and figure out a meaning
>for an address expression which will probably never be accepted by
>an Ada compiler.

Granted, but it is my understanding that the new rules of the Ada implementa-
tion game require the implementation of all of Chapter 13, unless the
implementor can show (I guess to the AVF) that certain parts are not
realistic for a given hardware/OS configuration.  (The traditional
example is, I believe, that it is OK not to supply TEXT_IO for a SBC
which has only 8 segment led's for output devices.)  I have seen the
LMC ruling which states this.

I can't think of any hardware feature (or lack thereof) which would make
the implementation of dynamic address clauses for subprograms unrealistic,
so I guess that EVERYBODY will have to start implementing them SOMEHOW!

This is exactly the point I really started out to make; i.e. that ALL
Ada implementors should be scared s---less that ACVC 1.11... 1.12... or
whatever will actually TEST for this!  I hope that we can get 13.5(5)
nixed before it comes to that.

-- 
Ron Guilmette
National SemiConductor
Internet: rfg@nsc.nsc.com
Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!rfg