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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	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: 2001-10-29 02:42:32 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: byhoe@greenlime.com (Adrian Hoe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Size and pack
Date: 29 Oct 2001 02:42:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <9ff447f2.0110290242.3a588edf@posting.google.com>
References: <9ff447f2.0110281701.45e0040c@posting.google.com>
 <633D7.83856$gT6.43463123@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.186.172.12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1004352152 605 127.0.0.1 (29 Oct 2001 10:42:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Oct 2001 10:42:32 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15335
Date: 2001-10-29T10:42:32+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<633D7.83856$gT6.43463123@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
> >Is having, "for Rx_Header_Data'size use 8*11;" better than pragma
> >pack? What is the rational?
>   What I want is an 11 byte record.  What a future maintainer might
> need to know is that it's an 11 byte record.  Perhaps "pragma pack"
> is a way to accomplish that, and perhaps it will be obvious to a
> future maintainer that such a record, when packed, is 11 bytes long,
> but it would take mental energy, and be susceptible to error, to be sure.
> If I didn't care about the layout, but just wanted to minimize storage,
> then using "pragma pack" would be easier.


OK. That's make the code more readable and maintainable.

Is "pragma pack" equivalent to "pragma optime (space)"?