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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,31982f45a4d88565 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-31 18:22:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!newspeer.cts.com!galanthis.cts.com!127.0.0.1.MISMATCH!not-for-mail Sender: kst@king.cts.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A Record Interpretation of an Array References: <3B12C9E0.5E9B06C8@earthlink.net> <3B16306C.48347CB4@earthlink.net> From: Keith Thompson Date: 31 May 2001 18:22:51 -0700 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.68.192.180 X-Trace: 991358571 nntp.cts.com 768 209.68.192.180 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7954 Date: 2001-05-31T18:22:51-07:00 List-Id: "Marc A. Criley" writes: [...] > Since all the array elements/record fields in this pathology are of the > same type (therefore size), there should be no reason for a modern > compiler to reorder them. Probably true, but there's no guarantee that it won't. (I'm probably more fanatical than most about sticking to what the standard actually guarantees whenever possible.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.