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,e08ffaff681705c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: access aliased obstacle
Date: 1996/07/04
Message-ID: <dewar.836481660@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163818675
references: <4rfig3$l5d@news1.delphi.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


tmoran said

"but one of my Ada 95 compilers objected to aliasing unless I make a
subtype with a specific discriminant value, which defeats the purpose.
The LRM appears to me to agree with this compiler.  The only obvious
possibility is unchecked_conversion.  What is the 'right' way?"

The use of unchecked conversion here is not at all obvious to me. We
would have to look at the detailed code you propose, but the restriction
in the RM makes good sense, and I would guess that your uncchecked
conversion approach simply will not work in some implementations.