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: 103376,8c8bbb1419c8e81a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jm59@prism.gatech.edu (John M. Mills) Subject: Re: Waiver question Date: 1997/05/06 Message-ID: <5kn9ue$n5s@acmex.gatech.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239727838 References: <5k52k2$7v0$1@news.nyu.edu> <5kb8ol$18o@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <1997May2.063334.1@eisner> Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > Strange semantics, IMHO. Pragma Pack is all about time-vs-space > trade-offs, but it has this weird side-effect on tasking semantics. We > should have a way to *declare* things independently adressable, but the > default should be that things are not. As in: 'pragma Volatile( ... );' ?? I have used 'pragma Pack(..);' to buy space at the expense of CPU time in a mission log kept on a solid-state device of modest (<100 MBy) capacity. This had a direct impact on the length of test our equipment could monitor. I have more frequently used 'pragma Pack' for inter-processor communications, such as to load and unload packetized communications records. Although I have not had to pack data to conserve RAM space, I couldn't rule this out for other users. -- John M. Mills, Senior Research Engineer -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0834 Phone contacts: 404.894.0151 (voice), 404.894.6258 (FAX) "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Simulations"