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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: no code generation for c strings
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:25:13 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly1t4eq81y.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <369391051.486634184.002061.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
	<nireuk$1cnp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ly8tymqlpn.fsf@pushface.org>
	<718de74d-ab15-4eee-983f-b78d8f8070f1@googlegroups.com>
	<ly60tqqffo.fsf@pushface.org>
	<814658902.486678528.509196.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="fa27e9c62dd412c1b6adffaac11b940a";
	logging-data="6801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lBU8P1VD9QYHpNQDopWhklrMlLzCsjfQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:et7iD03JSEpcIPwpvSyfGRq7Xm8=
	sha1:7zLw75mfT1y9C3FOgL8PNQ12x+c=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30594
Date: 2016-06-03T22:25:13+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> writes:

> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
>> Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Interesting, I tried this and dumped the asm, similar there, but as
>>> soon as you add more code, it just gets confusing, because it never
>>> references the actual label for the string anywhere.
>> [...]
>>> S3 : constant C.char_array := "hello" & C.char'Val (0);
>>> begin
>>> --     Put_Line (C.To_Ada (S3));
>> 
>> You've commented out the only place where the variable is referenced --
>> here, it made up a label (LC1) and referenced that.
>> 
>
> Yeah that was on purpose as it produced a lot of stuff that complicated
> looking at it, in hindsight I probably should've just done an assignment,
> might've produced less. 
>
> I'm still not sure why your way of doing this produced the desired effect
> though.

Possibly because it was in a spec? Yours was in a library-level
subprogram, so there would have been no need for a related symbol?