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: 103376,233f0e04e488a4a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Size of 0..255 is not 8 bits?
Date: 1998/05/14
Message-ID: <dewar.895191407@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 353358133
References: <355A436E.11F76529@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680001305982154260001@news.ni.net>
 <355AEA1D.6C292667@cl.cam.ac.uk>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 895191728 26544 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-05-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<This did not change anything, V is still a 16-bit integer. I get
no difference whether the 'Size clause is for the type, the object,
both or none at all. Only
>>


It is indeed a bug in a compiler if a Size clause for an object does not
result in the object tkaing the indicated nnumber of bits. But perhaps
you had better post the EXACT code that leads you to that conclusion.

Size causes so much confusion among those who don't understand it clearly,
that I  often find that when the code is displayed it does not at all
correspond to the original decsription.
does not 
clearly correspond to the description or conclusions that have
been published!

It is interesting that a significant portion of our support activities
revolves around issues with size and other representation clauses,
where programmers have written implementation dependent code and
not realized that they were doing so. We spend quite a bit of time
explaining the problem and helping to figure out how to most easily
fix it.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies