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: 103376,976a050e0f89277c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jonathan Guthrie Subject: Re: Urgent question: malloc and ada... Date: 1998/05/02 Message-ID: <6ifdou$io3$1@news.hal-pc.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 349611666 References: <352A79C2.15FB7483@nathan.gmd.de> <6hvm8k$t3l$1@news.hal-pc.org> <1998Apr30.180141.1@eisner> Organization: Information Broker Systems Internet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.ada Robert Dewar wrote: > Of course, as noted elsewhere in this thread, it is perfectly reasonable > (and indeed expected) for an Ada compiler to have multiple calling > conventions if there are incompatible other-language compilers. Actually, I was commenting more on the alignment of structs (which, as far as I know, can vary even on those systems with a single calling convention) than the calling convention. Calling conventions are usually reasonably well standardized, the alignment of structs is not. Yet your post implied that both are covered (as they would have to be) by the requirements. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Information Broker Systems +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA We sell Internet access and commercial Web space. We also are general network consultants in the greater Houston area.