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,f71c159449d6e114
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Ada 83 - avoiding unchecked conversions.
Date: 1996/12/12
Message-ID: <58np72$9qp@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204498397
references: <md5:8B831999BCF200C6E70994BDF6CC529F> <32AED68A.48BE@aisf.com>
 <32b03008.564464@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32b03008.564464@netnews.worldnet.att.net> dewi@cableol.co.uk (Dewi Daniels) writes:
>Ada 83 prohibits the use of address clauses to alias two variables
>(LRM 13.5). I believe it's legal in Ada 95. My preference would be to
>use an unchecked conversion.

An unchecked conversion is much more efficient.  Using an address
clause not only forces the object into memory, but disables many
optimizations on it (essentially treats it as volatile).