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: 103376,38ceb882eed41e1e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-30 17:53:03 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Size and pack
Date: 30 Oct 2001 17:53:03 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0110301753.2a7eaabf@posting.google.com>
References: <9ff447f2.0110100005.2503bb00@posting.google.com>
 <3BC40DF2.9447F025@icn.siemens.de> <3bc41989.4285341@news.demon.co.uk>
 <9ff447f2.0110102236.712cb9ea@posting.google.com>
 <3bc55c38.3322217@news.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1004493183 11679 127.0.0.1 (31 Oct 2001 01:53:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Oct 2001 01:53:03 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15451
Date: 2001-10-31T01:53:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe) wrote in message news:<3bc55c38.3322217@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Depends on the compiler. The example earlier...
> 
> >       for rx_header_data_packed use record       
> >          start_byte   at  0 range  0 ..  7;
> >          splitter     at  1 range  0 ..  7;
> >          command_byte at  2 range  0 ..  7;
> >          pad_byte_1   at  3 range  0 ..  7;
> >          log_num      at  4 range  0 .. 31;  -- Changed
> >          pad_byte_2   at  8 range  0 ..  7;  -- Changed
> >          end_byte     at  9 range  0 ..  7;
> >          lrc          at 10 range  0 ..  7;
> >       end record;
> 
> Could also be written as:
> for rx_header_data_packed use record       
>    start_byte   at 0 range   0 ..  7;
>    splitter     at 0 range   8 .. 15;
>    command_byte at 0 range  16 .. 23;
>    pad_byte_1   at 0 range  24 .. 31;
>    log_num      at 0 range  32 .. 63;
>    pad_byte_2   at 0 range  64 .. 71;
>    end_byte     at 0 range  72 .. 79;
>    lrc          at 0 range  80 .. 87;
> end record;
> 
> which would remove the possibility of confusion because 
> of different storage unit sizes.

This is FUD, the above rewriting accomplishes
nothing and is wholly undesirable. No confusion
arises in either case on a byte addressed machine,
and on a word addressed machine, neither form is
likely to give you what you want.