CONTR47@NOSC-TECR.ARPA.UUCP (04/12/87)
Some inexpensive I/O devices use a totally different bit definition of a register depending on whether you are reading or writing the register. Therefore I would like to have two abstractions of the register address, one for reading and one for writing. e.g.: -- type status_type is (ok, error); for status_type use (ok=>1, error=>2); type command_type is (start, stop); for command_type use (start=> 1, stop => 2); status : status_type; command: command_type; for status use at 16#3_FFF#; for command use at 16#3_FFF#; -- LRM 13.5 (8) seems to say this is illegal - "Address clauses should not be used to achieve overlays of objects --" Does the LRM citation apply to my situation? Comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance. regards, sam harbaugh ---------------------