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,ac5c3bc59168d76
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Subprogram Renaming
Date: 1996/04/11
Message-ID: <Dppsx1.5BA@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146975398
references: <md5:95D854EBD1A47E0E86027A3CC7DBD9A4>
 <316BC3D6.14E7@csehp3.mdc.com> <Dpo770.ByH@world.std.com>
 <4kjkg6$4m2@krusty.irvine.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4kjkg6$4m2@krusty.irvine.com>,
Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> wrote:
>    package q is
>       procedure j;
>    end q;
>
>    package body q is
>       procedure k;
>       procedure j renames k;
>    end q;
>
>Are j'address and k'address equal?  Is there anything in the RM that
>says one way or the other whether they must be equal?

No.  The RM does not require them to be equal, nor does it require them
to be unequal.

>How about j'access and k'access?

No, no requirement.

In fact, it's worse than that -- the RM does not even require that
P'Access = P'Access, for any procedure P.  See 4.5.2(13-13.a) and
3.10.2(39).

>I can't think of a legitimate reason to compare the two in actual
>code, in either case.  I'm just curious if the RM says anything about
>it, and if this would prevent the compiler from generating code for
>"j" that calls "k".

The compiler can generate code for j that calls k.  It can also generate
code for j that just *jumps* to the start of k (so the return
instruction in k returns directly to the caller of j).  Or, it can
generate no code for j, and make calls to j and k call to the same
address.

- Bob