From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 20 Sep 92 22:32:28 GMT
From: telesoft!garym@uunet.uu.net  (Gary Morris @pulsar)
Subject: Re: Enumerations
Message-ID: <1992Sep20.223228.4176@telesoft.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <1992Sep19.004035.22312@sei.cmu.edu> Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu (John Goodenough
) writes:
>The one case in which you might expect a compiler to provide a default
>enumeration representation different from that of the position number is for
>the predefined type BOOLEAN.  My understanding is that on some architectures
>it can be more efficient to code FALSE as a negative number (e.g., all ones)
>and TRUE as a non-negative number (e.g., all zeroes).  

This is true on the 68000 family processors, using 0 for false and -1 for
true is more efficient that 0 and 1.  Our current 68020 code generator takes
advantage of this.
--GaryM
-- 
Gary Morris                     Internet: garym@telesoft.com
Ada Software Development        UUCP:     uunet!telesoft!garym
TeleSoft, San Diego, CA         Phone:    +1 619-457-2700