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,c30642befcd7bf85
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: New GNAT ports (was Re: Ada and Automotive Industry)
Date: 1997/01/08
Message-ID: <dewar.852774527@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208730081
references: <dewar.851455793@merv> <5asvku$jtu$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <32D2B847.6A7@lmtas.lmco.com> <5avfqo$it9$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard said

"The only reason that I bothered about the placement of code at all
was that the 8051 book I was studying included a memory test program
that did this.  According to the Ada 83 LRM I had handy, you _couldn't_
supply address clauses for code."

That is wrong, Ada 83 did allow you to specify the address of a subprogram,
and in fact using this in conjunction with pragma Interface was a well
known way of fooling a compiler into providing a mechanism equiavlent to
an indirect call:


   procedure x;
   for x'address use expression; -- expression need not be static
   pragma interface (Ada, x);

now when you call x, you call the subprogram at the given address.
In fact CIFO specifically required this to work!