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: 103376,976a050e0f89277c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Urgent question: malloc and ada...
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: <6ii0o4$mch$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 349837372
References: <matthew_heaney-ya023680003004981723000001@news.ni.net>
 <6ihhko$i4n$1@news.nyu.edu> <6ihtmc$nf9$1@news.hal-pc.org>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 894207556 22929 (None) 128.122.140.194
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-05-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <6ihtmc$nf9$1@news.hal-pc.org> Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> writes:
>Unfortunately, on every C compiler that I know well, it is possible to
>adjust the alignment of the fields in structs on a case-by-case basis. 
>Those alignments do not have to correspond to any system convention or even
>make any sense.

Right, but the same is true for Ada.  If you are overriding the defaults
in a structure layout, you do so the same way for C and Ada and need not
bother with Convention, which basically tells the compiler what to do
*by default*.

>In any case, that sounds pretty different to me.  The statement has been
>made that the Ada compiler is required to deal with all the complexities
>of the Ada/C interface, I'm just trying to probe the limits and find out
>what they are.

But when you explicitly specify a layout on either side, you are no
longer taking about the Ada/C interface.