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,d9fa52ca55dcef0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Packed array size question....
Date: 1997/03/16
Message-ID: <dewar.858568318@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 226102515
References: <01bc2b36$b64477a0$f5093e9f@lsm8-pc.linkabit.titan.com>
 <dewar.857784634@merv> <mheaney-ya023680001303970016240001@news.ni.net>
 <01bc300c$247f6200$0e096dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001603971621360001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mathew Heaney wrote:

<<declare
   O : T;
begin
   write (addr => O'Address, nbytes => O'Size / 8);
end;>>

Better is O'Size / Storage_Unit -- makes it clearer what is going on, and
indeed to be absolutely right, you should write

(O'Size + (Storage_Unit - 1)) / Storage_Unit

which is an annoying mouthful, and i agree that an attribute would be nice.
We considered adding it to GNAT, but it would seem to create confusion,
given the Value_Size vs Object_Size issue.