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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d778a4f52acd9d43,start
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.75.170 with SMTP id d10mr7473409pbw.6.1324546890929;
        Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni51148pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Representation clauses for base-64 encoding
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrnjf5uol.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="7fyd7lCvGVUn5eibBXudkw";
	logging-data="14644"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cyhfGZOz2bOiWS/X/aEp/"
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MsEaaCp5zNqNP14m+RENtAkTjZY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-12-22T09:41:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

the recent discussion about representation clauses vs explicit shifting
made me wonder about what is the Right Way of performing base-64
encoding (rfc 1421).

My first thoughts were along the following lines:

   type Octet is mod 256;
      --  or Character or Storage_Element or Stream_Element
      --  or whatever 8-bit type relevant for the appliication

   for Octet'Size use 8;
   for Octet'Component_Size use 8;
   for Octet'Bit_Order use System.Low_Order_First;

   type Base_64_Digit is mod 64;

   for Base_64_Digit'Size use 6;
   for Base_64_Digit'Component_Size use 6;
   for Base_64_Digit'Bit_Order use System.Low_Order_First;

   type Octet_Block is array (1 .. 3) of Octet;
   pragma Pack (Octet_Block);

   type Base_64_Block is array (1 .. 4) of Base_64_Digit;
   pragma Pack (Base_64_Block);

   function Split_Base_64 is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion
     (Source => Octet_Block, Target => Base_64_Block);

   function Merge_Base_64 is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion
     (Source => Base_64_Block, Target => Octet_Block);


However, if I understand 13.3(73) correctly, conforming compilers don't
have to support such arrays (unless 6 and 8 are both factor or multiple
of word size, but I guess there are not many 2-bit or 24-bit platforms
around).

It seems a more portable but uglier way of doing it is using record:
instead of arrays:

   type Octet_Block is record
      P, Q, R : Octet;
   end record;

   for Octet_Block use record
      P at 0 range 0 .. 7;
      Q at 0 range 8 .. 15;
      R at 0 range 16 .. 23;
   end record;

   type Base_64_Block is record
      A, B, C, D : Base_64_Digit;
   end record;

   for Base_64_Block use record
      A at 0 range 0 .. 5;
      B at 0 range 6 .. 11;
      C at 0 range 12 .. 17;
      D at 0 range 18 .. 23;
   end record;

Though I guess it might not work so well in 16-bit platforms.

So is there a better way of doing it? Is it acceptable to handle
portability with different bodies for a spec that only contains the
Split_Base_64 and Merge_Base_64 functions?

Or is there some things I'm missing that makes even that non-portable or
even incorrect?


Thanks in advance for sharing your wisdom,
Natasha