Re: Does object renaming allow the view to be a copy?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2017-01-22 18:37, Simon Wright wrote:
> AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Am Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 09:27:47 UTC+1 schrieb G.B.:
>>> A SO answer (41746244) has given rise to the question of whether
>>> or not a compiler implementer may make a renamed object a copy
>>> of the original. (Layman's assumptions from LRM 3.1(7), 8.5.1),
>
> I did suggest that it would have to be a crazy implementer who did this.
>
>> 3.1(7) ...a renaming_declaration is an example of a declaration that
>> does not define a new entity, but instead defines a view of an
>> existing entity (see 8.5)...
>>
>> So how can you think a compiler may create a copy?
>
> I think that if the object isn't limited and the operations done on it
> don't alter its contents you'd be hard put to it to tell the difference,
> that's all.
>
> But like I said, crazy. Under the hood, any sensible person would have a
> reference to the original object.

Some packed Boolean, not at the storage element margin?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de