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,cdeb9be83428b637 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada95: at clause - 'Address Date: 1996/10/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190579512 references: <3267958B.41C6@erols.com> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ramesh says In Ada95 I guess the "at clause" has been replaced with the 'Address. I'm trying to port a piece of software from Ada83 to Ada95, and the "at clause" is being handled differently by the GNAT compiler. In case 1 it ignores it (I'm not sure if it will work, as I do not have the complete software compiled), and in case 2 it complains. Is there any way to get around this problem. I do not believe that GNAT ignores case 1 (Ramesh gives no evidence that this is the case). If there is such evidence, it is a bug, send along details to report@gnat.com. In case 2, it complains because this is a construct that is non-portable and which is rejected by GNAT. We could be more liberable and allow this, but do not want to unless we know other Ada 95 compilers will also allow the non-portable cases. Meanwhile, "is there any way to get around this problem", sure! Write proper Ada 95 code, and use a previously defined constant for the address (I am sure you got a quite specific GNAT message telling you to do this :-)