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,d17561d7e5eba62c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1999/12/17
Message-ID: <slrn85keec.46.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 561938150
Distribution: world
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca>
  <38596575_4@news1.prserv.net> <3859701a@rsl2.rslnet.net>
 <3859a3ad_2@news1.prserv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: IKS GmbH Jena
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* Matthew Heaney wrote:
>The object declaration
>
>declare
>  function To_Unsigned is
>    new Unchecked_Conversion (Character, Unsigned_8);
>
>  C_As_Byte : constant Unsigned_8 := To_Unsigned ('A');
>begin
>
>should be identical to the declaration
>
>declare
>  C : constant Character := 'A';
>begin
>
>If the former is more expensive than the latter, then your compiler is
>broken.  

Nope. The former one contains a restriction to 8 bit which can be
considerably slower that using the native character size of the processor.