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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.42.235.8 with SMTP id ke8mr18067247icb.22.1404814671824;
        Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.47.200 with SMTP id m66mr225qga.37.1404814671776; Tue,
 08 Jul 2014 03:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news.glorb.com!hn18no196834igb.0!news-out.google.com!a8ni13244qaq.1!nntp.google.com!m5no29300qaj.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 03:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lytx6scowp.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=20.132.64.141;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.132.64.141
References: <lp9nc6$no3$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lyk37rcwah.fsf@pushface.org>
 <lp9t79$5pj$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lp9tj0$6ii$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <ly38eefbkf.fsf@pushface.org> <lpckgk$6a8$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <lpcm62$nug$1@dont-email.me> <lpeg5s$f6r$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <ly7g3pdreg.fsf@pushface.org> <lpevj6$nai$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <lytx6scowp.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <02020103-045e-4e87-b558-26797d945793@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 'Size hack for enumerated types
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:17:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20797
Date: 2014-07-08T03:17:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:04:06 AM UTC-4, Simon Wright wrote:
> 
> ... GNAT said "warning: C enum types have the size of a C int" 
> 

GNAT is being optimistic.  From 6.7.2.2/4:

"Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined, but shall be capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration."

It's perfectly reasonable to have non-int sized enums (bigger or smaller), and IIRC gcc even has a switch to achieve this.

-sb