Re: Examining individual bytes of an integer

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 08:27:19 UTC+2 schrieb Niklas Holsti:
> On 18-10-19 00:18 , Randy Brukardt wrote:
> > "AdaMagica" wrote in message
> > news:39be8a25-cc06-4db4-9481-7f484077522d@googlegroups.com...
> > ...
> >> There remains the other statement:
> >> "By reasonable induction  :-)  the second, third, etc. array elements
> >> follow in increasing address order. But not _guaranteed_, I agree."
> >>
> >> I still claim that this has too be true (of course with a grain of salt for
> >> packead arrays).
> >
> > I agree, it would make indexing calculations really expensive if it isn't
> > true. And I don't see a compiler author doing that on purpose.
> 
> Oh, I'm not so sure... Storing by *reverse* index order should not be 
> much more expensive, if at all.

Hm, but what would be the purpose or gain? Just for the fun of it?

> I seem to remember hearing about a 
> Pascal compiler in which record components were stored in reverse 
> lexical declaration order, just because of the way the compiler turned 
> out, or so I understood.

But records are still another kettle of fish (echoing Randy). Ada does not prescribe how the components are allocated - they may be rearranged in any order.