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,ab36006a122bb868
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com
Subject: Re: Overlay allowability
Date: 2000/05/01
Message-ID: <EfkP4.1042$XX5.880190@news.pacbell.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617943474
References: <390D94FB.D23390D4@lmco.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net
X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 957206628 206.170.24.1 (Mon,
 01 May 2000 11:43:48 PDT)
Organization: SBC Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 11:43:48 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>A few times in my career I've encountered situations where two different
>representations of the same set of bits are desired in a high
  Why can't you use Unchecked_Conversion?  Then at least the
compiler has an opportunity to warn you if dope vectors, tags,
alignment padding, etc, are going to result in a different number
of bits than you expected.