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,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Protected Types and Address Clauses Date: 1996/02/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140139338 references: <4fqe6h$t0e@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4fqe6h$t0e@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Bob Gilbert) writes: > protected Discretes is > procedure Write(Settings : in SETTING_LIST); > private > HW_Control : DISCRETE_HW_CONTROL; > for HW_Control use at 16#4000_0001#; > end Discretes; > Our compiler complains about the address clause, claiming that > HW_Control is not visible. Looking at the language specification > I do see that address clauses are not included here. What is > the rationale for this omission? Seems to work the way I read it. The private part is a list of protected_element_declarations. A protected_element_declaration can be a protected_operation_declaration. A protected_operation_declaration can be a representation_clause. A representation_clause can be an attribute definition_clause, which can be FOR local_name'attribute USE expression. I think you are looking at a (not very surprising) compiler bug. As a workaround you might try defining HW_Control inside Write and any other operations you might add later. Of course before reporting this as a bug make sure you didn't misspell something. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...