Re: Record initialisation question

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1358 bytes --]

"DrPi" <314@drpi.fr> wrote in message 
news:6005e946$0$13558$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Le 18/01/2021 à 00:55, Shark8 a écrit :
>> On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 10:03:34 AM UTC-7, DrPi wrote:
>>>
>>> I had a very bad surprise : Enums are used in some records. One enum did
>>> not have the Size specified (8 bits). All was working as if it was not
>>> present except I had to assign it a value. I had to lower the
>>> Object_Size and the enum was removed from the result (its value was not
>>> present in memory mapping). After setting Size => 8 to this enum, all
>>> went well.
>>
>> This is not too bad a restriction; simply have two 
>> identical-except-for-size types.
>> NEEDED_SIZE : Constant := 2;
>> Type Base_Enumeration is (a,b,c); -- Uses defaults.
>> Type Boot_Enumeration is new Base_Enumeration with Size => NEEDED_SIZE;
>>
> That's a clever construct. I have to remember it.
> In my case I don't need 2 types since the only place the enum is used is 
> in the record which describes the memory mapping.
>
> The bad surprise is that the enum is completely discarded from the memory 
> mapping when its size is not specified.

That sounds like a bug, I don't think data is supposed to be ignored because 
of a too-small Size clause (instead, the program ought to be rejected).

                            Randy.