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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be920da40970e1c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-11-10 22:38:30 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!204.127.161.3!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmasters2!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "David Thompson" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3A007357.FF3475A0@mindspring.com> <3A01C76C.86CEA181@mindspring.com> <8u059j$luj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8u1k6c$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <8u5s27$qau$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: gnat/ppc and a32 blt transfers X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:38:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.78.96.133 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 973924710 12.78.96.133 (Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:38:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:38:30 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:2011 Date: 2000-11-11T06:38:30+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote : ... > the Ada RM specifically recognizes that a compiler must provide > an appropriate mechanism for insertion of machine language > statements (assuming the systems programming annex is > implemented). Of course these mechanisms are not portable ... > There is no such requirement in C as far as I remember (I do > not have the C standard at hand to double check). C (ISO 9899:1999) does not require anything, although in _informative_ Annex J Portability Considerations it lists asm ( string-literal ); as a common extension. C++ (ISO 14882:1998) specifies that same keyword and syntax as standard, with the contents of the string (that is, the actual assembler syntax) implementation defined; an implementation defining that the contents are ignored would presumably be legal. -- - David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net