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: 103376,45a9122ddf5fcf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: schwarza@gdls.com (Art Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Rules for Representation of Subtypes
Date: 1996/09/30
Message-ID: <52oi3v$din@mill.gdls.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186230593
references: <dewar.844014110@schonberg>
organization: General Dynamics, Land Systems Div
reply-to: schwarza@gdls.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nearest that I can remember, byte size varies by machine. It is NOT an
eight byte quantity. This is probably the motivation to use _octet_
instead of bytes in formal descriptions.

  An example of byte sizes:  CDC 1604    6 bits
                             CDC 6000   12 bits
                             PC          8 bits
                             UNIVAC 1100 7, 8, 9, 12 bits
                             PDP-10      7 bits (and others?)

art schwarz

(No opinion is held more dearly than the one's I must let go.)


In article <dewar.844014110@schonberg>, dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>Bob Duff said
>
>"In article <dewar.843920464@schonberg>,
>Robert Dewar <dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I wrote:
>>It should."
>And Robert replied:
>>I am completely puzzled, you can specify the size of types and the size of
>>objects, what on earth woul it mean to specify Storage_Size for an array
>>(as opposed to specifying the type or object size for the array).
>
>The complaint was that Ada measures everythng in bits, and why can't you
>specify sizes in bytes, or storage units, or whatever, which is much
>more convenient in many cases.  That's what I was saying "It should" to.
>
>- Bob"
>
>
>Ah, OK, fine, but the use of Storage_Size is most misleading, since this
>does not refer to the space in storage units taken up by a value of the
>type!
>
>I absolutely agree that this is a missing capability, and if you look back
>at one of my previous messages, you will see that I suggested the
>attribute "Size_In_Storage_Units for this purpose. (note that
>Max_Size_In_Storage_Units is not right, because it can include
>templates, bounds etc, but for many types they will be the same).
>dp
>