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,a415d3a613d86a4e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT'Object_Size Date: 1997/12/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 296823000 References: <662cs9$b34$1@newman.pcisys.net> <663j9f$e1l@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3485D2AE.3F54@hso.link.com> <3486E716.FD325298@elca-matrix.ch> <348C1957.3F4352F4@elca-matrix.ch> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 881730262 10802 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: <> An obvious, but wrong, approach is to use the 'Constrained bit to indicate whether the original object is constrained or not. This does not work, because an originally unconstrained object can appear constrained because of an intermediate parameter stage.