Re: Unchecked_Union record inside an other record - trouble

[Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>]

Shark8 wrote:

> On 08-Aug-14 13:56, Victor Porton wrote:
>> For records interfacing with C it SHOULD be ignored completely. Because
>> it is C.
> 
> Not in your example; the subcomponent is part of a record which is *not*
> a C-style union, it should therefore store the proper tag value
> (discriminant) in its own discriminant.
> 
>     type T2(K: Kind) is
>        record
>           Z: int;
>           Ob: T(K);
>        end record
>     with Convention=>C;
> 
> Yields:
>    warning: variant record has no direct equivalent in C
>    warning: use of convention for type "T2" is dubious
> So, remove Convention => C.

You forgot "with Unchecked_Union". Certainly your code does not work.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org