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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e977cd3ab4e49fef
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Norman H. Cohen" <ncohen@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Question about record rep spec placement
Date: 1997/01/15
Message-ID: <32DD307D.7208@watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 210124873
references: <32DCFDAA.2656@lmtas.lmco.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Date: 1997-01-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> We have some Ada83 code that looks like the following:
> 
> package Some_Package is
> 
>   type Some_Record is record
>    -- components here
>   end record;
> 
>   -- some arbitrary declarations here
> 
> private
> 
>   for Some_Record use record
>    -- component rep spec here
>   end record;
> 
> end;
> 
> Are there cases in Ada where a record representation specification
> cannot be deferred until the private part of the package? I'm told that
> when this code was compiled with an Ada 95 compiler, that the record
> rep spec had to be moved to immediately after the record declaration
> for the code to compile correctly. I'm wondering if this is
> 
>   (a) illegal Ada83 code that our Ada83 compiler accepted anyway
>       (much like the use of unchecked_conversion on the left-hand side
>       of an assignment statement, as described in another thread),
> 
>   (b) legal Ada code that the other Ada compiler rejected anyway, or
> 
>   (c) OUCH! Ada83 code that is no longer valid Ada.

The answer lies in those "arbitrary declarations".  If those
declarations contain what is called a "forcing occurrence" in Ada 83,
such as a declaration of an object of type Some_Record, the record
representation clause is illegal.  Essentially the same rules hold in
Ada 95, but with different terminology:  The Ada-95 RM describes the
object declaration or whatever as "freezing" the representation of the
record type.

There are a few cases where the freezing rules make a legal Ada-83
program into an illegal Ada-95 program, but these cases are obscure and
pathological.  For example, because of poor wording in the Ada-83
definition of "forcing occurrence", 

   subtype S is Integer range 0 .. Some_Record'Size;

was not a forcing occurrence in Ada 83, but this declaration does freeze
the representation of Some_Record in Ada 95.

-- 
Norman H. Cohen
mailto:ncohen@watson.ibm.com
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen