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: 103376,2203a21a136b39cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence
Date: 1997/04/09
Message-ID: <dewar.860617761@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231906871
References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> <E8385t.9zE@thomsoft.com>
 <dewar.860159911@merv> <3349165C.3B93@cae.ca>
 <1997Apr8.155111.26714@nosc.mil>
 <mheaney-ya023680000804971958130001@news.ni.net>
 <334BA679.5E5D@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Stephen says

<<Unfortunately, not even gnat implements this attribute>>

referring to the Bit_Order attribute representation clause.

Well i appreciate the implied expectation that GNAT implemnts everything :-)

But the Ada 95 language does not really expect this attribute definitoin
to be implemented for byte addressed machines, since it results in very
awkward non-contiguous fields.