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,bbbeae4ed07e9626
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Address to function pointer conversion
Date: 1997/06/16
Message-ID: <EBvL5A.Dx3@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 248884067
References: <5nrq5h$13cm@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <dewar.866305487@merv>
 <5o39sm$2fl6@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5o39sm$2fl6@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
Michael Paus <michael@ifr16.luftfahrt.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>...The only portable solution I see at the moment is to import the
>dlsym function several times for each anticipated function pointer
>type. This is not a very nice solution but I think it should work.

The above sounds reasonable, if there aren't too many different such
function prototypes.

On the other hand, if you insist on the flexibility of the
unchecked-conversion method, then it might make more sense to
unchecked-convert from one access-to-subp type to another (both types
being pragma Convention(C)).  This is more likely to be portable in
practise than unchecked-converting from type System.Address to
access-to-subp.  No guarantees, of course.

- Bob