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,e8339c7ac4436cbf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: for S'Storage_Size ...
Date: 1997/02/17
Message-ID: <33086E64.185B@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 219469744
References: <01bc1c0e$bf67c4e0$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Date: 1997-02-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jonas Nygren wrote:

> A Storage_Error will be generated when the fourth Sub_Task is allocated!

See my other post about task types and pointers.

> If I change the 'for ... use ...' to add an extra 5 byte per Sub_Task
> object all works as expected. What could be wrong?

When you give storage size for a collection, some additional space is
needed by the implementation to manage the collection (free lists,
etc.). That additional size is or is not (implementation dependent, I
think) included in the storage size you give. So you have to give your
collections some extra space if you want your program to be portable. 

For fixed size types, I think it would be nice to be able to specify the
size of the collection in number of objects rather than storage units.