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: 103376,2203a21a136b39cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence
Date: 1997/03/29
Message-ID: <dewar.859697765@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229388496
References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca>
 <mheaney-ya023680002903971605380001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iMatthew Heaney says

<<Of course, you shouldn't be using address overlays to change representation
anyway, and the RM is rightly admonishing you to not do so>>

Now I am pretty sure you are reading the Ada 83 RM, there is no such
admonishment in the Ada 95 RM, nor any reason for one. Indeed, the
implementation is encouraged to go out of its way to make overlays
work even without pragma Volatile, although for my taste I prefer to
use pragma Volatile on both variables when address overlays are used.