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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Portability of Arithmetic (was: Java vs Ada 95) Date: 1996/10/19 Message-ID: <1996Oct19.143402.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190608486 x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org references: <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net> <1996Oct15.174526.1@eisner> <32679C86.2FB8@watson.ibm.com> <3268573F.41C6@cray.com> x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN x-trace: 845750049/27617 organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > I think it would be a GOOD THING if all Ada compilers (and all C compilers > for that matter) supported 64-bit integers. Some of us might prefer to restrict C compilers to 8 bits. Unfortunately C is used worldwide, so getting the US Congress to tack an amendment onto an appropriation bill at the last minute would be insufficient. :-( > Note that any full language implementation of Ada 95 (you already know my > definition of this term, it means that everything in the RM is implemented > including all the optional annexes), you do have 64-bit integer arithmetic > since you can say: > > type Big_Int is delta 1.0 digits 18; > > and that maps typically into 64-bit binary arithmetic, or in any case is > presumably enough to provide for large file offsets. For the moment at > least files that are a million terrabytes long are presumably sufficient :-) If you have files which are longer, you can probably afford to fund enhancement of the compiler you use :-) Larry Kilgallen (Sorry, it's Saturday.)