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,fc95c1889fbed9e5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: C Interface question
Date: 1996/07/11
Message-ID: <dewar.837093265@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 168312798
references: <DuA7BB.21@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl> <4s1q6c$2es@ionews.ionet.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Kevin said

"I haven't tried it, but if a 'Address is the same size as an Access type, and ha
s the same value, then you may be able to
do the following:

function C_Function ( value : in Integer; Result : in System.Address ) return Sy
stem.Address;

Then, just use Unchecked conversion to convert the result to an Access type, and
 access it that way."


This is non-portable, and really too low level. Using a named access type
is much cleaner, and cleaner still is just using an in out parameter 
assuming your compiler follows the proper Ada 95 implementation advice.