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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c498d4a35691643
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:11:42 -0600
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:12:03 -0500
From: Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Allocated aligned arrays
References: <1132349753.719540.119910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <m2wtj56qdv.fsf@grendel.local>
In-Reply-To: <m2wtj56qdv.fsf@grendel.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <gI2dnaB_jeESueLeRVn-tw@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Trace: 
 sv3-Ivmtkvo1W+Uwy+ctaXqZnI0fRIfDtUGZqke3muATDaWO83NtkY0tzHI4Sw+SK5c7GzYH3lMk+A0cvg2!WaSGFUirTgsTLt9Igmq8oUUvoHNPeWRYp73pWeTugwCTAmWzHrmDYHQ4lKlG8w+6uMYSQQdYRw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6476
Date: 2005-11-19T08:12:03-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright wrote:
> "ldb" <louis@pittpatt.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>These are the actual indicies I would use (it's an image processing
>>algorithm that trims the edges). I'm not sure if the strange indices
>>could be causing the problem, but I cannot imagine it is.
>>
>>However, the three matricies, input, sam, and bob aren't necessarily
>>aligned (for certain input index ranges they are, by default, and some
>>times they are not. The alignment statement I am using seems to have no
>>effect).
> 
> 
> A little experiment here shows that GCC 4.0.0 on Darwin seems to work
> reasonably, but your problem is no doubt bigger.
> 
> What compiler/architecture? sounds like a bug to me -- I don't believe
> a compiler is (should be!) allowed to accept a pragma like this and
> then fail to honour it?
> 
> Note however RM 3.3(32):
> 
>    An implementation need not support specified Alignments that are
>    greater than the maximum Alignment the implementation ever returns
>    by default.


It seems like one could reasonably work around this (whether it is a bug 
or an implementation limit) with a user defined storage pool.