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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ebc19d379b37caae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Type size vs. actual size difference.
Date: 2000/03/20
Message-ID: <sdcm3eaplul93@corp.supernews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 599998058
References: <8b5hhp$pvv1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Date: 2000-03-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bruce Detter wrote in message <8b5hhp$pvv1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>...
>Using GNAT 3.12 on Win NT 4.0.  We have defined a record that has a length
>of 214 bytes.  The type'Size attribute reports 214, but when we declare a
>variable of the record type (X : Type) the size attribute X'Size reports
>216.  It appears the actual variable size takes into account adjustments to
>word boundaries (and of course the type'Size attribute can't do this).  Is
>there a preprocessor command or pragma command that will force byte
boundary
>alignment so that the type size agrees with the actual size?


This topic was discussed recently here.
Topic name was:  Size (novice question).

Shortly - size of the stand-alone variable is a multiple of storage units.
(Variable should be stored and accessed in memory in effective manner ).

In your case 216 = Byte'Size*7;
But Type'Size is exactly 214.

If your record would be a part of the other record  it's
size could be made exactly 214 bits.

Regards,
Vladimir_Olensky