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 10.180.83.104 with SMTP id p8mr1067332wiy.4.1359518515813;
        Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 i11ni28377wiw.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.139.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT 4.4.5 Record Bit_Order Endian issues
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:58:28 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lytxq8tbcb.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <854ni9c319.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <kdn4g3$od1$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<85pq0wadak.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="c8da4aa61d590a5e477a2e03e552a940";
	logging-data="7304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YLstJAm3vZxLR/wppEoElKCZUOuae3XQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R4F3UKOEKUKZ0fU+wC0wizgZBHU=
	sha1:YEBPp054PDsH8g5jT9qRuob5ZPo=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2013-01-23T10:58:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> I'm thinking it would be sufficient to say something like:
>
>     'position' specifies R.C'Address - R'Address (in units of
>     Storage_Unit)
>
>     If the nondefault bit order applies, each 'position' must specify
>     the start of the machine scalar following the machine scalar used
>     in the previous component.

Either this, or must be the same as the machine scalar used in the
previous component (but of course this component might increase the size
of the required machine scalar; eg, the previous component addressed bit
0, this one addresses bit 31).

'previous' - although IMO it'd be unusual to order the component clauses
in non-ascending order (position*System.Storage_Unit + first_bit?), I
don't think the ARM forbids it.