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: 103376,9a4a0b8e5206a866 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question Date: 1999/01/28 Message-ID: <78q0or$c40$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 437804193 References: <369DFFFC.A160D47C@neta.com> <77l492$b5s@hobbes.crc.com> <77ma9b$6ep$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78od69$b4t$1@plug.news.pipex.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 28 15:46:38 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <78od69$b4t$1@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Nick Roberts" 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