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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,7b60a2e8329f4e64
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.14.98 with SMTP id o2mr1662842wic.4.1358654411553;
        Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:00:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 i11ni8363wiw.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.87.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT 4.4.5 Record Bit_Order Endian issues
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:38:39 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kd28ei$2h1$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <20bda3de-b033-4b4e-8298-2ac47701b814@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1358210323 2593 69.95.181.76 (15 Jan 2013 00:38:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:38:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2013-01-14T18:38:39-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"awdorrin" <awdorrin@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:20bda3de-b033-4b4e-8298-2ac47701b814@googlegroups.com...
...
> Not sure if this 'bug' would be fixed in a newer version of the GNAT 
> compiler or not.

The RM has a strict definition of what 'Bit_Order means; the only variable 
is the size of a "machine word". So I think GNAT has very limited 
flexibility in what the result is for such a transformation. I didn't try to 
figure out if they got it wrong or not, but if not, they probably could not 
change the results (in the absense of some implementation-defined pragma or 
aspect).

                                         Randy.