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,a84a01d2859560a0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: bit operations on integers
Date: 1999/05/03
Message-ID: <yecwvypd4xe.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 473720688
References: <7gkhr7$5kr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gkr2g$k5g@hobbes.crc.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@nusku.cts.com
X-Trace: nusku.cts.com 925779661 25239 198.68.168.21 (4 May 1999 01:01:01 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 May 1999 01:01:01 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-04T01:01:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> writes:
[...]
>    procedure Clear
>      (Item : in out Integer;
>       N    :        Natural)
>    is
>      Bits : Bit_Array;
>      for Bits use at Item'Address;
>    begin
>       Bits (N) := False;
>    end Clear;
[...]

In Ada 83, using an address clause to achieve an overlay is erroneous.
(In Ada 95, it's erroneous only if it violates the properties of the
type, or words to that effect.)  At least one Ada 83 compiler issues a
warning for such a construct.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center  <http://www.sdsc.edu>                 <*>
Techno-geek.  Mouse bigger than phone.  Bites heads off virtual chickens.