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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d23826ff0acb491b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Gem 39 - compiler specific?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <9e0bbbcd-260f-48ed-8043-d6280c633e85@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
  <h7mumh$707$1@munin.nbi.dk> <19268dbw82hf4.aii8as09aapk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4bff103b-1797-4e2b-9dcf-7466b667c59b@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <1s8kuin5t96vr$.1taw9mluqlplz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1bf4b63a-1e2d-41f1-97c6-8324d4b829ff@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <6o3frhrv0n0p$.8wj0gszs5h07$.dlg@40tude.net> <h7peo6$qvv$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1udpwiw4u1cj5$.ff4ssnbb90vn$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <dded24f9-f083-4fcc-b0f9-a76554055fca@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <1pi1b5q7qu0q5.sgsbxppd55q7$.dlg@40tude.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:18:59 +0200
Message-ID: <vohn08k16932.1y0m53ofb0k5c$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Sep 2009 19:18:58 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: af476146.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=2hZNim\RX7Z[7Non7UCi8UMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYcNX<1=;Ii>WDNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCd<M^<Tk]]Kim\m]7e==G]Yb2gR
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8159
Date: 2009-09-04T19:18:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:06:12 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> In short, you never needed Unchecked_Conversion that would behave
> differently from Address_To_Access_Conversions does.

No, I was wrong. In Ada 2005 there is such case. Let we have:

   type I is interface ...;
   type T is new .... and I with ...;
   type I_Ptr is access I'Class;
   type T_Ptr is access T'Class;

   X : aliased T;
   P1 : I_Ptr := X'Access;
   P2 : T_Ptr := X'Access;

then likely:

   U_C (P1) /= U_C (P2)

   To_Address (P1) = To_Address (P2)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de