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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a3ccb375568d2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Preelaborable address clause? Date: 1999/02/12 Message-ID: <7a3qmo$e66$4@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 443944611 References: <36C19FED.3628666A@praxis-cs.co.uk> <36C20210.4C8B494B@icon.fi> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Niklas Holsti wrote in message <36C20210.4C8B494B@icon.fi>... |Rod Chapman wrote: |> |> Does anyone know if it's possible to construct a Pre-Elaborable |> Address representation clause? |> |> I find that |> |> A : Integer |> for A'Address use System.Storage_Elements.To_Address(16#00001000#); |> |> if rejected when pragma Preelaboreate is applied to the enclosing |> unit, since To_Address is not a static function (LRM 10.2.1(7)) | |Probably you already rejected this possibility, but I'll state |it anyway: if System.Address is not a private type on your system, |you could supply a direct literal of that type, instead of a |To_Address conversion. Of course, it would not be portable. But, since System.Storage_Elements.To_Address is implementation-dependent anyway, portability is not an issue. I would suggest (to Rod) that if your compiler does have a private System.Address type (and does not support any other means of supplying a static address to an address representation clause), you try another compiler. |Niklas Holsti |Working at but not speaking for Space Systems Finland Ltd. ------------------------------------------- Nick Roberts "The Prophylactic Didactic" -------------------------------------------