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: 103376,71dcb452eafb5045
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Ada enumerations
Date: 1997/12/12
Message-ID: <34912441.6CE2FE35@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297529452
References: <348EDDC9.794B@hso.link.com> <dewar.881792609@merv>
 <34901D71.FD118790@elca-matrix.ch> <dewar.881883499@merv>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Mats Weber said
> 
> <<Isn't Unchecked_Conversion approximately like doing
> 
>    X : Enum;
>    I : Integer;
> 
>    for I'Address use X'Address;
> >>
> 
> OUCH! I sure hope not, that would be a horrible approach for scalars, since
> it would force them into memory. It is hard to believe any compiler is that
> stupid, but you never know.

I didn't mean to force the stuff into memory, I just meant "in effect" (I said
"approximately like").

> In practice, all the compilers I have worked with do the sensible thing
> when converting scalar types, i.e. zero or sign extend as appropriate,
> and truncate at the most significant end if necessary. This is most
> certainly what GNAT does.

But only when the sizes are different, right ? For instance, if I convert a
32-bit integer to a 32-bit packed record of 4 bytes, I will get MSB first on a
big endian machine and LSB first on a little endian machine ?