> Probably for Convention C, we should convert Address to *void.
>
> So, for
>
>function Alloc (Size : size_t) return System.Address;
>pragma Export (C, Alloc, "__gnat_malloc");
>
> we probably should do this replacement and add the necessary
> type conversions. That would seem to be how
On Feb 11, 2012, at 05:37, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The polymorphism pointer/address indeed proves to be problematic in certain
> circumstances (e.g. it breaks on m68k, see PR ada/48835). My understanding
> is
> that using pointers in Ada is heavyweight, hence the choice of an integer for
> Sys
> is having Address be an integer useful any more? Nowadays it should be
> possible to declare Address to be an access type with no associated storage
> pool. Even nicer might be to have it be turned into void* when lowering to
> GCC types. After all, Address is really used much like void*; see h
Hi Eric,
Can you try to extract a testcase (assuming it's just a single case?).
We shouldn't
warn for layout-compatible types (but we may do so if for example struct
nesting differs).
It's more basic than that: for example, we map pointers on the C side to
addresses (integers) on the Ada side.
> Can you try to extract a testcase (assuming it's just a single case?).
> We shouldn't
> warn for layout-compatible types (but we may do so if for example struct
> nesting differs).
It's more basic than that: for example, we map pointers on the C side to
addresses (integers) on the Ada side.
--
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This breaks LTO bootstrap because of warnings for apparently incompatible
> types
> at the interface between C and Ada. Given that it's very likely not possible
> to fix them all, let's keep accepting them.
>
> Tested on i586-suse-linux, ap
