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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ecc058d81d1613b5 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.190.193 with SMTP id dj1mr17652450qab.6.1356709000390; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:36:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.94.129 with SMTP id dc1mr5147304qeb.22.1356709000375; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:36:40 -0800 (PST) Path: k2ni3151qap.0!nntp.google.com!ee4no2928533qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:36:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.153.58.182; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.58.182 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <584cab7e-318f-415c-936c-8e98d9540cec@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Help on record to a Newbie From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:36:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-12-28T07:36:40-08:00 List-Id: On Friday, December 28, 2012 5:52:42 AM UTC-6, Cedric wrote: > Hi again, >=20 > The comments with "register" in it were meant to define variables that ca= n access processor registers. As I learnt last night, this is normally not = needed when using Ada. I try to find a solution with the Ada way. "Pragma Volatile(VARIABLE);" will mark a variable as 'undecidably mutable',= something like a memory-mapped clock where any access of the value could h= ave a different value -- I don't recall any way to bind a variable to a reg= ister, and in any case that's likely a bad idea: the compiler is typically = smart enough to know when to put things in a register. -- Many men, working= multiple years on the problem, are likely to have a better understanding o= f the how/when... this is precisely why the "big new overhaul" in programmi= ng is parallelism: the market selected C/C++ and thus bonded to a low-level= view of computing (because it was "more efficient" and they had more "cont= rol") which is inherently a poor fit for the problem of parallelization. You will get the same result every time you try to fit the code to the mach= ine rather than the code to the problem. (Of course, sometimes the machine = is the 'problem' as is the case with OSes and device rivers.)