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: 103376,7c0437014cb20f71
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: nabbasi@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: System.Address_to_Access_Conversions
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6ogieq$qlo@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371486509
References: <6odddl$k94$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AB9C59.74E529E0@magic.fr>
 <6ofn8e$5ff$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ofqvs$alm@hacgate2.hac.com>
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <6ofqvs$alm@hacgate2.hac.com>, "David says...

>  Typically you will want to use a record representation clause to
>make the memory layout correspond to the harware requirements.  Using a
>tagged type in such a sitiuation is not a good idea, because the tag is a
>"hidden" data field within the record which certainly will have no
>correspondence with the hardware-required memory layout.
>

I read somewhere that the tag position within a record is always defined,
it is the first element always, right? not sure what's its size, I assume
it is an address to someother tag related information somewhere else, so its
size is also known, right?

Nasser