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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c04e7bb2fc34b078
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-24 03:46:11 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: alm@gtd.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_L=F3pez?=)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Win32 binding
Date: 24 Apr 2002 03:46:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <47759943.0204240246.6a98ef3e@posting.google.com>
References: <aa39vt$4aj$1@nsnmpen2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>
 <uvgaio0wg.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.76.14.164
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019645171 26604 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 10:46:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2002 10:46:11 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23043
Date: 2002-04-24T10:46:11+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> However, in this particular case, the elements are 32 bit integers,
> and there is no reason not to align them on byte boundaries, so I
> don't think the comment in win32-rpcndr.ads is meaningful. Hmm, it
> might have some impact on a machine that had 16 or 32 bit storage
> units, but I'm not aware of Windows ports to any such machines!

In fact, arrays of 16 bit unsigned integers and 8 bit unsigned chars
are used without problems in that binding. This is why I was confused.