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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7272aa7508a3d83f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: pointer questions
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:25:47 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m23bmkbjck.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <djp1tm$186k$1@node3.news.atman.pl>
 <A_Z7f.2112$Rl1.1471@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <wccvezjrqvv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <43621147$0$8220$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1130588748 25004 62.49.19.209 (29 Oct 2005 12:25:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:25:48 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LhKKObIZgCVs9+6GL42EgIovFJ0=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6046
Date: 2005-10-29T13:25:47+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David <kdgreen@fastmail.fm.au> writes:

> I develop larg'ish mission-critical systems in Ada and cannot use
> pointers, dynamic memory allocation, tasks, variants, recursion,
> etc. etc.  You can always find a way to not use pointers as long as
> you stick to Ada (not interfacing C/C++).   Memory mapped hardware can
> be accessed using an expression like "for x'address use at <hardware
> address>".  You can declare one variable on top of another the same
> way.
>
> Trying to get code safety-certified with pointers is very difficult
> to impossible.  Code that doesn't use pointers is invariably simpler
> and more reliable but it may require more thought depending upon
> mind-set.

Do the rules allow unchecked conversion?

Using "for x'address use" to "declare one variable on top of another"
is a way of trying to pretend to the auditor that you aren't doing
unchecked conversion ... much safer to do UC, at least the compiler
has a chance to tell you that (for instance) the things concerned
aren't the same size!