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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Forcing GNAT to use 32-bit load/store instructions on ARM?
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:24:12 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lp20qc$iju$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <0e0b9ac2-e793-4cc5-8d8d-d3441ca28a58@googlegroups.com>
 <1j7b0m3yptffy$.1cztnkty8elrv$.dlg@40tude.net> <lou8e0$7u2$3@dont-email.me>
 <ee4cjxhhe7yi$.kqeq5ati5vrg$.dlg@40tude.net> <loupft$48j$1@dont-email.me>
 <nboccqyjxkzx$.10p3g2l6gzzdd.dlg@40tude.net> <lov4ga$3v9$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1404339853 19070 69.95.181.76 (2 Jul 2014 22:24:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:24:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20688
Date: 2014-07-02T17:24:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote in 
message news:lov4ga$3v9$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-07-01, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:00:45 +0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> If for some reason the compiler could not generate a 32-bit str opcode
>>> instead of an 8-bit strb opcode, the pragma Atomic should have caused
>>> an error during compilation.
>>
>> Well, pragmas are permitted to be ignored. Atomic should never be a 
>> pragma.
>>
>
> I thought that only applied to unrecognised pragmas.

Correct. Pragma Atomic should be illegal if it is not supported.

But Dmitry is right, it should never have been a pragma. (Pragmas should 
only have been used for global configuration, never on individual entities, 
IMHO.)

> OTOH, going back a couple of versions to the Ada 95 RM (the version
> I have to hand and also the pragma only days), C.6(10) makes it clear
> that an Atomic pragma is illegal if the implementation cannot support
> the indivisible accesses required.

Right. If the OP really did exactly as he said, then GNAT has a bug (no 
matter what his declaration was). [But I've seen plenty of cases where 
someone (including me) thought they'd tried something when they really had 
not for one reason or another.]

                                    Randy.