Re: Size Rep clauses on Ada83 vs. Ada95

[bpriest@ti.com (Bill Priest)]

Tucker == <stt@inmet.com>

Tucker> Hence, the recommendation still stands that to be in complete
Tucker> control, use a record representation clause.  Note also that
Tucker> the word "should" rather than "shall" appears in the above citation 
Tucker> from RM95, whereas in the rules on record representation clauses, there 
Tucker> is no such implementation variability allowed.

I tried this; but the compiler is so buggy that it no longer would even
believe that one of the fields even existed (i.e. a function call that made
an assignment to the field was "optimized away").  

Thanks for the advice,

Bill
PS.  I reported it as a bug to Tartan; and changed my record to only contain
32 bit quantities (except for the boolean values; which seemed to be ok as
long as they were at the bottom of the record declaration).  Not pretty or
maintainable; but it was the only thing I found that would work.  

PPS. Anyone know where I could get a copy of the latest ACVC's (if possible);
I would like to try to build and run as many tests as possible so that I can
know what types of things the compiler can and cannot handle.