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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d939a7e1280607b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Representation clause in records?
Date: 1999/02/06
Message-ID: <yeciudfvtxl.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 441534631
References: <m2iudgijh1.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com> <yecu2x05oow.fsf@king.cts.com>
 <36BC1760.B1F55E8C@mediaone.net>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@nusku.cts.com
X-Trace: nusku.cts.com 918353847 24433 198.68.168.21 (7 Feb 1999 02:17:27 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Feb 1999 02:17:27 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-07T02:17:27+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Steven Hovater <nh-ho@mediaone.net> writes:
> The only rep spec I"ve seen is an alignment clause at the beginning
> of the record, e.g. (best I can recall...)
> type foo is record
>    for foo'address use at mod 32;
>    begin
>      blah : integer16;
>      more_blah : integer16;
> end record;

No, the syntax you're thinking of is:

   type Foo is
      record
         Blah      : Integer16;
         More_Blah : Integer16;
      end record;
   for Foo use
      record at mod 4;			-- Storage units, not bits
         Blah      at 0 range 0 .. 15;  -- (the component clauses
         More_Blah at 2 range 0 .. 15;  -- are optional)
      end record;

The alignment clause is within the record representation clause, not
the record type declaration.

(You can also specify the alignment with "for Foo'Alignment use 4;".)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <*>
San Diego, California, USA <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.