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: 103376,856114749978634c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) Subject: Re: Protected Types and Address Clauses Date: 1996/02/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140554685 sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash) x-nntp-posting-host: pulsar references: <4fqe6h$t0e@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <4gcppr$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Thomson Software Products, San Diego, CA, USA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada originator: kst@pulsar Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In 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