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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5d13:: with SMTP id
 r19-v6mr12800659iob.10.1539598726325;
        Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4995:: with SMTP id
 w143-v6mr277239oia.7.1539598726068;
 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!x98-v6no17224ita.0!news-out.google.com!n199-v6ni31itn.0!nntp.google.com!x98-v6no17219ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <g2hqooFq0usU1@mid.individual.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=80.139.103.202;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.139.103.202
References: <9d90fa3e-f800-4086-bf97-a65474a8140a@googlegroups.com>
 <pq0706$60k$1@dont-email.me> <g2hqooFq0usU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4ddbc9bf-0e2e-466d-8238-d8f709b985e1@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Examining individual bytes of an integer
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:18:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54584
Date: 2018-10-15T03:18:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2018 23:28:57 UTC+2 schrieb Niklas Holsti:
> Not guaranteed, but implied by the "Implementation advice":
> 
> - RM 13.3(11): X'address denotes the address of the first of the storage 
> elements allocated to X.
> 
> - RM 13.3(14): For an array X, X'Address should point at the first 
> component of the array [...].
> 
> Combining those two, it seems that the first element of an array should 
> start at the first storage element (= lowest address) allocated to the 
> array.
> 
> By reasonable induction  :-)  the second, third, etc. array elements 
> follow in increasing address order. But not _guaranteed_, I agree.

There is the old Dewar rule that no compiler is doing nonsense. It would be a very unfriendly compiler to not follow this advice.