Re: Records and their types.

Re: Records and their types.

[Ted Dennison]

In article <7s93ih$4vj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > required size is. (Like I said, the DEC compiler used to
> accept this and work
> > fine with it while others complained.)
>
> It will work fine, but in this case, there is no need to provide
> a default. DEC always allocated the maximum value for
> unconstrained variant records. Perhaps it did not give a
> warning, but it should have :-)

It was a long time ago, but the way I remember it the DEC compiler would
do as Robert says, but it would also try to run with it. That lead to
rather inefficent code, but hey, you're the programmer. If you want the
ability to expand your array field to 2*31 elements, that's what you
get.


--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Re: Records and their types.

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7satv9$ehj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> It was a long time ago, but the way I remember it the DEC
compiler would
> do as Robert says, but it would also try to run with it. That
lead to
> rather inefficent code, but hey, you're the programmer. If you
want the
> ability to expand your array field to 2*31 elements, that's
what you
> get.


We are not talking about "expanding your array field to ...",
we are talking about the default allocation of 2**31 elements.
Of course GNAT will "try to run with it", but you will, as the
warning told you, get a Storage_Error.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.