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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Addressing in Object Ada v/s GNAT (2013) showing Vast Differences
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:04:38 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <muk3kn$3rm$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <d9a8f605-fbcf-43bf-a53f-91c7f7608461@googlegroups.com>
 <ca55984c-17ca-4295-a43d-46300bf255e4@googlegroups.com>
 <msrt8o$fdm$1@dont-email.me>
 <26b4bb33-0ebc-4181-bea6-07f1e36ca288@googlegroups.com>
 <1r88k387kddye.1hpclmn13sjb2$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9aa08966-6072-4d35-9089-d404a5ff1a43@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1443729879 3958 24.196.82.226 (1 Oct 2015 20:04:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:04:39 +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
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27896
Date: 2015-10-01T15:04:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Lucas Redding" <lucas.redding@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9aa08966-6072-4d35-9089-d404a5ff1a43@googlegroups.com...
>On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:49:02 PM UTC+1, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 04:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Lucas Redding wrote:
>>
>> > In fact I am stumbling on portability of the rep clauses.
>>
>> Which is an oxymoron. Representation clauses are meant to make the code
>> non-portable.
>...
>Thanks for pointing that out Dimitri
>
>Come to think of it you are right.
>
>However it depends what and where you want to port.

Exactly.

>In my case I wish to port the same application and same data to a different 
>compiler.
> In this case the rep clause is essential for the port. So like life 
> itself, it is only
> meaningful if within context.

Different compiler on the same target, you mean (the last part is critical). 
We used rep clauses to increase portability between Ada compilers with Claw, 
because they eliminated the differences between the compilers and ensure 
that the types actually match the Windows API.

Of course, those rep clauses aren't useful on some other target (even 64-bit 
Windows would be an issue in some cases). But then again, neither is Claw. 
:-)

                                    Randy.