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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78b2880bc7e78e39 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-20 12:06:10 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!skynet.be!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: RISC Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:00:39 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <998ctp$ond$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <98qumf$5sf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98r4g1$7r1$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ab1d090$1@pull.gecm.com> <98t8la$rc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ab72c8f$1@pull.gecm.com> <997pq4$i35$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ab79ade$1@pull.gecm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 985118457 25325 136.170.200.133 (20 Mar 2001 20:00:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Mar 2001 20:00:57 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5922 Date: 2001-03-20T20:00:57+00:00 List-Id: Sounds to me like it says: "If you use an address clause to achieve an overlay you are being a very bad, bad, programmer and should be made to stay after programming school and write on the blackboard 'Thou Shalt Not Overlay' 1000 times and learn that the compiler cannot save you if you do stupid things like this. But if nobody is looking and the compiler doesn't complain and it works anyway, the LRM won't have anything against this..." I suppose it depends on your perspective about "rules". Is the Ada83 LRM of the belief that anything not forbidden is mandatory? Or is the Ada83 LRM of the belief that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission? I'd prefer to view the paragraph you cite as the LRM choosing to protect itself by declaring such use erroneous, but not stopping any compiler from giving you exactly what you asked for. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Martin Dowie" wrote in message news:3ab79ade$1@pull.gecm.com... > RM83, 13.5.something > "Address clauses should not be used to achieve overlays of objects or > overlays of program units. Nor should a given interrupt be linked to more > than one entry. Any program using address clauses to achieve such > effects is erroneous." > > But I've yet to find anything as explicit about this in RM95 :-( > >