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: 1997/01/11
Message-ID: <dewar.852988587@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209147516
references: <dewar.851455793@merv> <5asvku$jtu$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <32D2B847.6A7@lmtas.lmco.com> <5avfqo$it9$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <dewar.852774527@merv> <5b257v$fo1$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard said

"No, it is not wrong.  "code" is not a synonym of "subprogram".
The memory test program in question had reason to scatter _parts_ of
a subprogram around memory, and I appear to have got "Ada 83 didn't
let you supply address clauses for code _other_ than the start of a
subprogram" right."

Well I still think it is wrong to try to do that at the source code level,
I prefer the kind of approach Intel uses with a separate locator, i.e. you
break the code into chunks, call them control sections or whatever, but
they are named chunks, and then the locator places these named chunks at
specified locations.