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,e977cd3ab4e49fef
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jcreem@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Jeff Creem)
Subject: Re: Question about record rep spec placement
Date: 1997/01/16
Message-ID: <jcreem-1601970800220001@ljd155.sanders.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 210589485
references: <32DCFDAA.2656@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: Jeff Creem
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32DCFDAA.2656@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington
<GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:

>We have some Ada83 code that looks like the following:
>
>package Some_Package is
>
>  type Some_Record is record
>   -- components here
>  end record;
>
>  -- some arbitrary declarations here
>
>private
>
>  for Some_Record use record
>   -- component rep spec here
>  end record;
>
>end;

I have seen this on some compilers when the "some arbitrary declarations here"
contain any reference to the Some_Record in a way that makes the compiler
have to make some decision about the size of Some_Record.


This may not be the problem but it is something to look at.

Jeff