Re: Protected Types and Address Clauses

[kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson)]

In <dewar.824905563@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
[...]
> If you declare a single protected object, it is fine to have an address
> clause for the object, but not for its individual components.

Such an address clause is unlikely to do you much good, though, unless
you know exactly how the implementation lays out the components of a
protected object.  I presume that many implementations will put the
implementation-defined implicit components common to all protected
types at the beginning of the object (for more efficient addressing),
so user-declared components are likely to be at a substantial offset.

If you need to have an object of a particular type at a specified
address with the kind of protection offered by protected types, you'll
probably need to use Tucker Taft's suggested work-around of moving the
data declarations into the package body surrounding the protected body.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com
TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products
10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." -- Arthur Carlson, WKRP