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: 103376,7a58195927ccb785 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical devices Date: 1997/05/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 240230841 References: <3.0.32.19970504232023.006f5c8c@mail.4dcomm.com> <5kn99d$jje@top.mitre.org> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >As for (2), I don't see that. Indeed memory mapped I/O devices are tricky. >Ada programmers in particular are tempted to speak to memory mapped I/O >devices by using address clauses, and this almost always results in subtly >non-portable code that is making unjustified assumptions. Is there some _other_ way of doing memory I/O - without using address clauses? Isn't memory-mapped I/O in fact the _reason_ for address clauses in the language? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271