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: 103376,60dd4fe7723c0ef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Tarjei T. Jensen" Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM Date: 2000/04/12 Message-ID: <8d1paa$n0n4@ftp.kvaerner.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 610088711 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8coc5e$do2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d0ru2$arc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Organization: Kv�rner Group IT Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote >Fix the RM! The RM is plain wrong, just due to misunderstanding >of C. It is obvious that a record passed as an IN parameter >should map to a C struct passed as a value parameter. > >But it's too late now for that (that was our initial solution >in GNAT, and perhaps we should have stuck with it). > >The worst feature of C_Pass_By_Copy is the form with a byte >count giving the cutoff. It is not neccessarily all bad. I would not be surprised if there exists a C compilers which would pass a struct as value if it is smaller than 4 or 8 bytes and pass them by reference if they are bigger. I seem to remember having read about such a convention. Greetings,