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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cc7bad83fb245cb3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk (Aidan Skinner) Subject: Re: Binding a type to a union. Date: 1999/11/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 552597623 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skinner.demon.co.uk:158.152.76.219 References: <383ae9f8_3@news1.prserv.net> <81f3qe$jln$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 943466658 nnrp-12:22054 NO-IDENT skinner.demon.co.uk:158.152.76.219 Organization: None User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) Reply-To: aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:18:01 GMT, Robert Dewar wrote: >In article <383ae9f8_3@news1.prserv.net>, > "Matthew Heaney" wrote: > (pragma Unchecked_Union is GNAT-specific.) > >No it isn't! It isn't, however, part of the ARM AFAICT, which is why I didn't find it. While it's probably portable to most compilers, it isn't strictly portable (ie you can't *depend* on it being there in all implementations, even conforming ones that implement annex B). This isn't a concern in my case, since I'm building a binding to GNOME and it's relatively reasonable IMO to expect the compiler to be GNAT on the architectures which GNOME suppourts (most unicen). - Aidan -- "I say we just bury him and eat dessert" http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/ OpenPGP Key Fingerprint: 9858 33E6 C755 7D34 B5C5 316D 9274 1343 FBE6 99D9