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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,98e311935a219163 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-24 16:24:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!west.cox.net!cox.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "martin.m.dowie" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3CED51CF.39E26FC6@acm.org> <3CEDA095.61BE6EF6@acm.org> <478AE9B914ED6844.5DEC7C5E64D6473E.909AD32BDF37CFA7@lp.airnews.net> Subject: Re: Help with Copying Shared Memory to Local X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:23:56 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.145.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1022282645 62.252.145.36 (Sat, 25 May 2002 00:24:05 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:24:05 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24701 Date: 2002-05-25T00:23:56+01:00 List-Id: "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:aPwH8.15921$1U4.2841103386@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > "John R. Strohm" wrote in message > news:EE1B58C60CD7D9ED.3DE0D594451AD094.92104DC9322C357A@lp.airnews.net... > The other poster is right -- there's nothing to say that the above causes the > compiler to generate 16-bit accesses. When you need that kind of control, you > are better off writing the machine-code insert to do it explicitly, rather than > trying to coerce the compiler to do it the way you want. Sure, you can often > get your compiler to do what you want, until the next release! Unless you have fixed your compiler at a particular version - not an uncommon practice. Slap a _huge_ comment about the potential non-portable nature of the code and more detail in a design document and most of us mere mortals would be happy. (Quicker than finding someone with the right assembler skills too :-)