From: "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Default rep specs for record types - documented??
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:45:53 +0200
Date: 2005-11-04T19:45:53+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.szp8yrqbz25lew@super> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrndmloee.kq0.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org
Am 04.11.2005, 04:21 Uhr, schrieb Anonymous Coward
<bogus_addy@bogus_domain.net>:
> I'm interested in finding out what the default representation of a
> record type is. Can I expect the sequence of elements in the default
> representation to match the sequence they are defined in?
Whatever works best for the CPU at hand. The compiler has complete freedom
for any optimization usefull. He can pack them or align them, reorder -
what ever give best perfomace. Or he doesn't do any of that because there
is nor record layout optimizer implemented in the Ada compiler of your
choice.
Also read:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Types/record#With_aliased_elements
Martn
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-04 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-04 2:21 Default rep specs for record types - documented?? Anonymous Coward
2005-11-04 2:36 ` Steve
2005-11-04 4:11 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-04 5:30 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-05 3:13 ` Steve
2005-11-05 4:45 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-06 14:05 ` Steve
2005-11-06 16:08 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-07 7:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-08 13:36 ` Steve
2005-11-14 1:12 ` Robert A Duff
2005-11-14 3:03 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-14 18:08 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-14 18:49 ` Robert A Duff
2005-11-15 1:16 ` ADA compilers can reject types arbitrarily? Anonymous Coward
2005-11-15 2:10 ` tmoran
2005-11-15 3:12 ` Robert A Duff
2005-11-15 6:44 ` Simon Wright
2005-11-16 0:16 ` Adaists Deny Acronym. (was: ADA compilers can reject types arbitrarily?) Björn Persson
2005-11-16 5:38 ` Adaists Deny Acronym Simon Wright
2005-11-16 6:16 ` Adaists Deny Acronym. (was: ADA compilers can reject types arbitrarily?) Samuel Tardieu
2005-11-15 12:43 ` ADA compilers can reject types arbitrarily? Jeff Creem
2005-11-14 21:14 ` Default rep specs for record types - documented?? Simon Wright
2005-11-04 13:26 ` Stephen Leake
2005-11-04 14:33 ` Marc A. Criley
2005-11-04 18:35 ` Georg Bauhaus
2005-11-04 20:07 ` Britt Snodgrass
2005-11-04 14:39 ` Stephen Leake
2005-11-04 15:27 ` Britt Snodgrass
2005-11-04 15:55 ` Lauri Ora
2005-11-04 21:42 ` Larry Kilgallen
2005-11-05 2:26 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-05 2:42 ` Frank J. Lhota
2005-11-05 3:27 ` Ed Falis
2005-11-05 3:55 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-05 4:07 ` Lauri Ora
2005-11-05 13:46 ` Ed Falis
2005-11-05 10:14 ` Stephen Leake
2005-11-04 16:52 ` Frank J. Lhota
2005-11-04 16:57 ` Frank J. Lhota
2005-11-04 23:27 ` tmoran
2005-11-05 10:25 ` Stephen Leake
2005-11-14 1:09 ` Robert A Duff
2005-11-05 3:33 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-05 10:34 ` Stephen Leake
2005-11-05 16:35 ` ADA/C interfaces: type representations uncontrollable in C Anonymous Coward
2005-11-05 16:49 ` Ed Falis
2005-11-05 18:24 ` tmoran
2005-11-09 2:12 ` 'Size can mean value size OR object size, depending Anonymous Coward
2005-11-09 3:27 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-09 4:04 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-05 14:27 ` Default rep specs for record types - documented?? Michael Bode
2005-11-05 16:17 ` pragma convention Anonymous Coward
2005-11-06 1:07 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-06 22:22 ` Anonymous Coward
2005-11-07 7:34 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2005-11-05 14:39 ` Default rep specs for record types - documented?? Martin Krischik
2005-11-04 9:40 ` Martin Dowie
2005-11-04 14:36 ` Marc A. Criley
2005-11-04 17:45 ` Martin Krischik [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox