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: 103376,438f2856ab36a026 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) Subject: Re: 83/95 issue, bad code or compiler bug Date: 1998/11/22 Message-ID: <36587057.292493@news.pacbell.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 414568457 References: <3654cef4.21572221@news.pacbell.net> <735903$qa2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net 911765742 207.214.211.194 (Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:15:42 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:15:42 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-11-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >I think you misunderstand this. The compiler is indeed free >to only access 8 bits in a case like this, and indeed this >need not really be mentioned, it is obviously correct. Do you mean that you understand for X use at 0 range 0 .. 15; to mean that the compiler may not use *more* than 16 bits for X, but is perfectly free to use *less*? I would find that interpretation bizarrely anti-useful and am certainly glad Gnat does not seem to do things that way.