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: 103376,546b2e2a44f83809 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Gnat For use at Question Date: 1996/07/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168355912 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4s2eb5$qt6@masala.cc.uh.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada 23: 23:46 GMT Date: 1996-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article jerry@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes: > Laurent Guerby (guerby@gnat.com) wrote: > > : Spasmo> Hmmmm ok, well here's a question about To_Address. Since PC's > : Spasmo> use segment, base addressing, > > : This is a question for a DJGPP master I guess. > > Now, I couldn't let that pass, could I ? > > The segment:offset adressing is something that belongs to the real-mode > domain. As djgpp (and thus GNAT/DOS) is a protected mode eviroment it > uses the full 32-bit physical addressing. (Physical := 16 * segment + offset). Sounds like what you are saying is that for the user model (of the language and implementation in this case) the segmenation stuff is hidden and thus irrelevant. True? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com