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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8a019ea882aac73c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: GNAT's internal format for Discriminant Records?
Date: 1998/06/20
Message-ID: <358c2547.16624162@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364558560
References: <6meah3$3b$1@cronkite.sp.trw.com>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-06-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Discriminants are commonly placed in a record pretty much like any
other component, and you should be able to use record rep clauses to
force different compilers to all do what you want.  Tags are (in my
experience) 32 bits on the front and not movable.  If the hardware
gadget wants the data, but not the tag, how about
  type hardware_record is
     whatever : something;
  end record;
  type fancy is new some_tagged_type with record
     hardware_part : hardware_record;
  end record;
Then you don't care where the tag winds up because you just pass the
hardware_part to the hardware.