From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1671:: with SMTP id d17mr4396601qko.191.1631616893248;
        Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d497:: with SMTP id m145mr21849123ybf.389.1631616893032;
 Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 03:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <bec26cfe-a7c3-49b9-8272-9f08be93d7fdn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.8.134.225; posting-account=uulyKwoAAAA86DO0ODu--rZtbje8Sytn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.8.134.225
References: <e3c5c553-4a7f-408a-aaa7-60ec0b70202dn@googlegroups.com>
 <shnbn8$5he$1@dont-email.me> <bec26cfe-a7c3-49b9-8272-9f08be93d7fdn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6db89043-7d5b-4856-b4e5-093219685b9bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Custom Storage Pool questions
From: Egil H H <ehh.public@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:54:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62736
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 2:48:16 AM UTC+2, Jere wrote:
> 
> Yes, but if you look at that blog, they are allocating space for the /user/ data 
> and for the Next/Prev for controlled types and First/Last for unconstrained 
> arrays in addition to the size specified by allocate. 
> 

Yes, but if you look at that blog, they explain the default layout of fat pointers, 
and the special value that need to be set on access types for the layout to 
change. If you use such a GNAT-ism, your storage pool will also be bound
to GNAT...


ie: 
"GNAT typically uses a "fat pointer" for this purpose: the access itself is in fact
a record of two pointers, one of which points to the bounds, the other points to
the data. This representation is not appropriate in the case of the header 
storage pool, so we need to change the memory layout here."

and:
"we need to ensure that the bounds for unconstrained arrays are stored next to 
the element, not in a separate memory block, to improve performance. This is 
done by setting the Size attribute on the type. When we set this size to that of 
a standard pointer, GNAT automatically changes the layout,"


-- 
~egilhh