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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!NOSC-TECR.ARPA!CONTR47
From: CONTR47@NOSC-TECR.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Multiple abstractions of a register?
Message-ID: <8704120153.AA18401@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 11-Apr-87 21:00:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8704120153.AA18401
Posted: Sat Apr 11 21:00:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Apr-87 07:43:25 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Some inexpensive I/O devices use a totally different bit
definition of a register depending on whether you are
reading or writing the register. Therefore I would like to
have two abstractions of the register address, one for
reading and one for writing. e.g.:
--
type status_type is (ok, error);
  for status_type use (ok=>1, error=>2);
type command_type is (start, stop);
  for command_type use (start=> 1, stop => 2);
status : status_type;
command: command_type;
for status use at 16#3_FFF#;
for command use at 16#3_FFF#;
--
LRM 13.5 (8) seems to say this is illegal -
"Address clauses should not be used to achieve overlays of objects --"
   Does the LRM citation apply to my situation? Comments
and suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.
regards, sam harbaugh
---------------------