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 10.66.77.231 with SMTP id v7mr1805294paw.35.1358654366795;
        Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:59:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 6ni7417pbd.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!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: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:14:06 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kd7c84$mvb$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: 
 <20bda3de-b033-4b4e-8298-2ac47701b814@googlegroups.com><85hamiulsn.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <lyfw21v24l.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1358378052 23531 69.95.181.76 (16 Jan 2013 23:14:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:14:12 +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: 2013-01-16T17:14:06-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lyfw21v24l.fsf@pushface.org...
...
>> If you are allocating consecutive  bits, then do this:
>>
>> for TRACK_RECORD_TYPE use
>>    record
>>      TRACK_ID     at 0 range  0 .. 11;
>>      TRACK_ID_CNT at 0 range 12 .. 17;
>>      ...
>
> I don't see why this makes a difference? It certainly affects how GNAT
> behaves, though I have to say it looks buggy to me.

Because of the definition of Bit_Order! Essentially, if you're using the 
native bit order, these two mean the same thing, but they mean completely 
different things for the non-native bit order. Read the RM for details.

GNAT is most likely do thing right thing here, and it has no choice because 
of the definition of the language.

                                  Randy.