From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question
Date: 1999/01/28
Date: 1999-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78q0or$c40$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 78od69$b4t$1@plug.news.pipex.net
In article <78od69$b4t$1@plug.news.pipex.net>,
"Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Matthew Heaney wrote ...
> |But, are there any
> |compilers that actually do have a different
> |representation?
>
> Mine (ThoughtWing Ada, out not soon I'm afraid), when
> targetting Intel 386 etc. It uses 32-bit offset for
> pool-specific access types, and 48-bit segment+offset for
> general access types.
It's a natural enough idea if you actually want to fiddle
with the junk segment stuff on the ia32, but I think you
will find in practice that it causes a lot of problems to
make this choice, i.e. it will break a lot of assumptions
in existing code. As a compiler writer, you can of course
appeal to the standard, but if you actually want people to
use your compiler, you have to pay attention to how people
write code as well :-)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-01-28 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-01-14 0:00 Conversion of Access Types Question Paul S. Heidmann
1999-01-14 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Paul S. Heidmann
1999-01-14 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-15 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-27 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar [this message]
1999-01-21 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Tom Moran
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox