From: Wojtek Narczynski <wojtek@power.com.pl>
Subject: Re: why only in-parameters in functions
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:42:16 +0200
Date: 2004-09-30T00:42:16+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2004.09.29.22.42.15.952134@power.com.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.131.1096477841.390.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Hello,
I've tried to produce a patch for GNAT for this. Of curse, I realize what
"Standard" means, but I wanted to have this functionality (-gnatX
controlled) in order to deliver new arguments, by exposing all the tricks
caused by the absence of this feature. I believe this is the only way to
put this discussion back on (technical) track.
The Ada part was surprisingly easy, I only had to comment-out two lines.
After that it worked for types passed by reference. But for types passed
by copy, it turned out that modifications to GiGi C code are necessary.
But this code is in flux now (due to gcc tree-ssa change), so I left it
for now.
Regards,
Wojtek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-29 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-29 15:18 why only in-parameters in functions Rick Santa-Cruz
2004-09-29 15:30 ` stephane richard
2004-09-29 16:55 ` Alexander E. Kopilovich
2004-09-29 21:10 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-09-29 23:37 ` Björn Persson
2004-09-29 23:46 ` Rick Santa-Cruz
2004-09-29 21:12 ` Florian Weimer
2004-09-30 7:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-09-29 22:42 ` Wojtek Narczynski [this message]
2004-09-30 1:55 ` Matthew Heaney
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox