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: 103376,60dd4fe7723c0ef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "David Botton" Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM Date: 2000/04/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 608563396 References: <8ckqv5$maq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com Organization: WebUseNet Corp http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:49:11 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Certain COM types require use of these pragmas. GNATCOM is for the time being GNAT specific, but not necessarily do to these pragmas which happen to be found on other compilers. There are defects in the current Aonix compiler that prevent parts of the GNATCOM binding from working properly with Object Ada. I have heard rumors from people outside of Aonix that the next version when it will be released may address some of those issues. Other NT based compilers I have had access to either do not support the pragmas and/or use different pointer models that make porting of GNATCOM difficult. David Botton tmoran@bix.com wrote in message ... >Does GNATCOM still require Gnat specific pragmas like C_Pass_By_Copy >or Unchecked_Union, and if so, what is the status of those as official >modifications to the Ada standard?