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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5bef5e9c5bedc675 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-03 04:20:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: "Luke A. Guest" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [No_Elaboration_Code] GNAT still generating rep_to_pos, why? Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 12:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: abyss2.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1073132426 23411 62.49.62.197 (3 Jan 2004 12:20:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:20:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4069 Date: 2004-01-03T12:20:26+00:00 List-Id: On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:53:03 +0000, Simon Wright wrote: > I found Suppress_Initialization at > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/Implementation-Defined-Pragmas.html#Implementation%20Defined%20Pragmas > but I don't know whether it is officially supported by ACT for the > future (I tried it with 3.15p and 5.01a, the latter is closer to the > GCC version). As for support from ACT, I'm even sure if they'll give any kind of support unless you pay for it. You'd think that a minimum level of support would do?? Considering the email I got from Robert Dewar, I'm not too sure that an OS built with GNAT would be too portable across different versions either, which is bad in itself. > The key was to apply the pragma to type P. Genius! That does indeed work. Thanks for that one. I just need to be careful of what I apply it to. I suppose for this kind of work, it could possible be applied to all record types. I'll have to play and see. > I've managed to get myself confused about which combination of > options/compiler produced which effect, but I get the impression that > there is a difference between 3.15p and 5.01a here .. > > I'm not familiar with System'To_Address .. neater than the > Storage_Elements version, but more difficult to grep for in the > source! Well, the difference is that System.Storage_Elements.To_Address is a function call and System'To_Address isn't. So with the latter, you get a nice static initialisation, which is what is really required in this case. As for grepping, this works for me: grep -r System\'To\_Address * Thanks, Luke.