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: 103376,26a8192d4bd74b0f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bpriest@ti.com (Bill Priest) Subject: Re: Size Rep clauses on Ada83 vs. Ada95 Date: 1995/03/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100540668 references: organization: Texas Instruments, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-03-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tucker == 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.