* pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? @ 2008-01-09 8:40 okellogg 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: okellogg @ 2008-01-09 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw) -- File: main.adb -- Can we portably rely on pragma Pack taking precedence -- over Convention C? with Text_IO; procedure Main is type C_Represented_Enum is (Zero, One, Two, Three); pragma Convention (C, C_Represented_Enum); -- This would be 32 bits on a 32 bit architecture type Perhaps_Packed is array (1 .. 4) of C_Represented_Enum; pragma Pack (Perhaps_Packed); -- This could be either 8 bits if the compiler lets pragma Pack -- take precedence over Convention C, or 4 * 32 = 128 bits -- otherwise. begin Text_IO.Put_Line ("Perhaps_Packed'Size is" & Natural'Image (Perhaps_Packed'Size)); end Main; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 8:40 pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? okellogg @ 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff 2008-01-10 5:53 ` okellogg 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2008-01-09 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) On Jan 9, 12:40 am, okellogg <okell...@freenet.de> wrote: > -- File: main.adb > -- Can we portably rely on pragma Pack taking precedence > -- over Convention C? > with Text_IO; > > procedure Main is > > type C_Represented_Enum is (Zero, One, Two, Three); > pragma Convention (C, C_Represented_Enum); > -- This would be 32 bits on a 32 bit architecture > > type Perhaps_Packed is array (1 .. 4) of C_Represented_Enum; > pragma Pack (Perhaps_Packed); > -- This could be either 8 bits if the compiler lets pragma Pack > -- take precedence over Convention C, or 4 * 32 = 128 bits > -- otherwise. > > begin > Text_IO.Put_Line > ("Perhaps_Packed'Size is" & > Natural'Image (Perhaps_Packed'Size)); > end Main; In general, you can't rely on the Pack pragma to be portable at all; implementations are free to ignore it if they choose, or to choose whatever representation they think is best, without rejecting your program. In your example, it's possible for Perhaps_Pack'Size to be 32 if the compiler decides to make each element 8 bits. The Implementation Advice for the Pack pragma says that "the implementation should try to minimize storage allocated to objects of the type, possibly at the expense of speed of accessing components, subject to reasonable complexity in addressing calculations". Of course, this is just "advice", and an Ada implementation doesn't need to follow it. If it does follow the Advice, then I believe the compiler should normally make each component two bits, but the Advice is "flexible" enough that the compiler could make the components 8 bits or 16 bits or something else if it chooses. If you really need the components to be two bits each, rather than letting the compiler use its "judgment" between minimizing storage size and reasonable speed, you're better off using a Component_Size clause: for Perhaps_Packed'Component_Size use 2; Assuming that the "word size" is divisible by 2 (and I haven't seen any computers with a 19-bit word size for quite some time now :), then the implementation should implement this with no gaps between the 2- bit components, which means that the array would be 8 bits. If for some reason it doesn't support this, it will reject the program. Note, though, that 13.3(72) says that an implementation doesn't need to support Component_Sizes that are less than the size of the component subtype. In any case, to answer a question I think you're asking: The Component_Size of an array *may* be less than the Size of the component subtypes. Thus, if your Convention pragma makes C_Represented_Enum'Size equal to 32, this does not *prevent* the compiler from making the Component_Size of the array type 2 (whether with a Component_Size clause or a Pack pragma). Convention does not take "precedence" over Pack (or a Component_Size clause), the way you asked it. Whether the compiler actually makes the component size 2 or not is implementation-dependent, but I think most compilers would. They're definitely allowed to. Hope this helps, -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt ` (2 more replies) 2008-01-10 5:53 ` okellogg 1 sibling, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2008-01-09 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes: > On Jan 9, 12:40 am, okellogg <okell...@freenet.de> wrote: >> -- File: main.adb >> -- Can we portably rely on pragma Pack taking precedence >> -- over Convention C? >> with Text_IO; >> >> procedure Main is >> >> type C_Represented_Enum is (Zero, One, Two, Three); >> pragma Convention (C, C_Represented_Enum); >> -- This would be 32 bits on a 32 bit architecture >> >> type Perhaps_Packed is array (1 .. 4) of C_Represented_Enum; >> pragma Pack (Perhaps_Packed); >> -- This could be either 8 bits if the compiler lets pragma Pack >> -- take precedence over Convention C, or 4 * 32 = 128 bits >> -- otherwise. >> >> begin >> Text_IO.Put_Line >> ("Perhaps_Packed'Size is" & >> Natural'Image (Perhaps_Packed'Size)); >> end Main; > > In general, you can't rely on the Pack pragma to be portable at all; > implementations are free to ignore it if they choose, or to choose > whatever representation they think is best, without rejecting your > program. In your example, it's possible for Perhaps_Pack'Size to be > 32 if the compiler decides to make each element 8 bits. That's true, but for an implementation that claims to support the Systems Programming Annex, the compiler is required by C.2(2) to implement tight packing in many circumstances. Without the Convention(C) above, Perhaps_Packed'Size must be 8 bits. Are there any Ada implementations that don't support the SP annex? With the Convention(C), I'm not sure what the right answer is. I think what you say here: > The Component_Size of an array *may* be less than the Size of the > component subtypes. Thus, if your Convention pragma makes > C_Represented_Enum'Size equal to 32, this does not *prevent* the > compiler from making the Component_Size of the array type 2 (whether > with a Component_Size clause or a Pack pragma). Convention does not > take "precedence" over Pack (or a Component_Size clause), the way you > asked it. Whether the compiler actually makes the component size 2 or > not is implementation-dependent, but I think most compilers would. > They're definitely allowed to. is probably right in that case. I don't see why it matters, though. If you pass X(1), where X is of type Perhaps_Packed, to a C function, it will be passed by copy, so if it's 2 bits, it will get expanded into a 32-bit register or some such. If Perhaps_Pack were also Convention(C), then I suppose that would defeat the packing -- it has to represent the array in a way the C implementation likes. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff @ 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 19:17 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:wcctzlmk5rg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > Are there any Ada implementations that don't support the SP annex? Yes. But we do support most of the representation IA. (But *not* the packing IA). Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 19:17 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message news:fm6qhc$v2o$1@jacob-sparre.dk... > "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message > news:wcctzlmk5rg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... > ... > > Are there any Ada implementations that don't support the SP annex? > > Yes. > > But we do support most of the representation IA. (But *not* the packing IA). For those of you whom are tired of seeing me post the same message a zillion times, I think I've figured out what the problem is (or might be, anyway). It appears that the messages are getting sent to the server successfully, but the connection is timing out before the reply come back. Of course, the newsreader takes that as a failure and retries sending the message. It's a similar problem as one I've recently debugged with sending e-mail to some places in Europe -- the propagation delay can be very long and thus the timeout needs to be extra long. I'm experimentally setting the timeout to 3 *minutes* to see if that will help; I hope it does. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:wcctzlmk5rg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > Are there any Ada implementations that don't support the SP annex? Yes. But we do support most of the representation IA. (But *not* the packing IA). Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:wcctzlmk5rg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > Are there any Ada implementations that don't support the SP annex? Yes. But we do support most of the representation IA. (But *not* the packing IA). Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff @ 2008-01-10 5:53 ` okellogg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: okellogg @ 2008-01-10 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw) On Jan 9, 5:06 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote: > > for Perhaps_Packed'Component_Size use 2; > Yes, this is what I've been overlooking. Many thanks Oliver ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-09 8:40 pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? okellogg 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) 2008-01-11 22:46 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 4:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "okellogg" <okellogg@freenet.de> wrote in message news:a244cc70-8735-468d-a0ad-b2b659b6d58e@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > -- File: main.adb > -- Can we portably rely on pragma Pack taking precedence > -- over Convention C? The ARG has argued similar questions as part of AI05-0012. And when I say argue, I meant it -- this was one of the most contentious issues that I can remember in the ARG. About all we were able to agree on was that the Implementation Advice for Pack requires things that are impossible. It got bad enough that we tabled the AI completely; we're not planning to try to resolve it in the near future. One of the points of contention was that "best efforts" packing is good enough (even when the IA says something else). Another point of contention is whether the pragma should be rejected if "best efforts" packing causes none at all. Moral: avoid Pack for anything where the representation matters to portability. Use 'Component_Size instead. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) 2008-01-12 0:35 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-12 4:58 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 22:46 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: (see below) @ 2008-01-11 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/08 04:20, in article fm8e95$q0u$1@jacob-sparre.dk, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > > Moral: avoid Pack for anything where the representation matters to > portability. Use 'Component_Size instead. What is the view on combinations like this: type seive is array (pos_integral range <>) of Boolean; for seive'component_size use 8; pragma pack(seive); or even this: type a_set is array (a_member) of Boolean; for a_set'Component_Size use 1; pragma Pack(a_set); pragma Convention(C, Entity => a_set); I guess these are somewhat redundant. Does it matter? -- Bill Findlay <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) @ 2008-01-12 0:35 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-12 4:58 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2008-01-12 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Jan 11, 11:53 am, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 11/1/08 04:20, in article fm8e95$q0...@jacob-sparre.dk, > > "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > > > Moral: avoid Pack for anything where the representation matters to > > portability. Use 'Component_Size instead. > > What is the view on combinations like this: > > type seive is array (pos_integral range <>) of Boolean; > for seive'component_size use 8; > pragma pack(seive); > > or even this: > > type a_set is array (a_member) of Boolean; > for a_set'Component_Size use 1; > pragma Pack(a_set); > pragma Convention(C, Entity => a_set); 13.2(9) makes me think that the 'Component_Size clause is honored and the Pack pragma can't change it. -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) 2008-01-12 0:35 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2008-01-12 4:58 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-01-12 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw) "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:C3AD79A1.D95EF%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk... ... > What is the view on combinations like this: > > type seive is array (pos_integral range <>) of Boolean; > for seive'component_size use 8; > pragma pack(seive); Send that to the Dept. of Redundancy Department. The Pack has (and can have) no effect, so there is no reason to give it. That was one of the points of contention: if the pragma can have no effect because of some other reason (by-reference types, atomic types, other rep. clauses), some of us thought it should be rejected (it seems to promise something it can't deliver - just ignoring it seems harmful). My preference is to avoid Pack altogether. (We probably took that too far with Janus/Ada: we never even implemented it. ;-) Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) @ 2008-01-11 22:46 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2008-01-11 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw) "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes: > The ARG has argued similar questions as part of AI05-0012. And when I say > argue, I meant it -- this was one of the most contentious issues that I can > remember in the ARG. Sometimes, it seems the contention is inversely proportional to the importance of the topic. ;-) - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-01-12 4:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-01-09 8:40 pragma Pack vs. Convention C, portability issue? okellogg 2008-01-09 16:06 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-09 22:12 ` Robert A Duff 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 19:17 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 4:15 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-10 5:53 ` okellogg 2008-01-11 4:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 19:53 ` (see below) 2008-01-12 0:35 ` Adam Beneschan 2008-01-12 4:58 ` Randy Brukardt 2008-01-11 22:46 ` Robert A Duff
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox