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: 103376,91cedaee59262cd8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interfacing with C
Date: 1999/12/31
Message-ID: <x7vhfgzw9ft.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 566922378
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <vhiln6cllz7.fsf@grotte.ifi.uio.no>
 <946601401.12snx@jvdsys.stuyts.nl>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 946663434 nnrp-13:12462 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-12-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

jerry@jvdsys.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes:

> >What I don't understand here is that x works perfectly, while
> >the datum in y gets fucket up. Why?
> 
> B.3(69)
> 
> Check compiler doc for pragma Pass_By_Copy.

A quick scan of the GNAT RM says that the implementation-defined
pragma C_Pass_By_Copy is a configuration pragma (ie applies to whole
program).

The GNAT RM also says there is a pragma Convention (C_Pass_By_Copy)
which could be applied to the record type. I couldn't find any
specific info on this (GNAT RM 3.11p, 3.12a2) -- it's only mentioned
under pragma C_Pass_By_Copy.