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,c30642befcd7bf85
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Addresses of Subprograms (was: New GNAT ports)
Date: 1997/01/15
Message-ID: <5bigev$fs9$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209966320
references: <dewar.852774527@merv> <1997Jan11.152602.1@eisner>
 <1997Jan13.102240.1@eisner>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <1997Jan13.102240.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>These two uses for specifying the address of code (memory test vs.
>indirect call) would seem to conflict in the case of Alpha VMS
>where the "procedure value" commonly passed as the "address"
>of a subprogram is quite different from the address of the first
>instruction of the subprogram executable code.

This is also the case on most ABIs for the RS/6000 and PowerPC.