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: 1996/10/22
Message-ID: <1996Oct22.072906.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 191208583
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net> <1996Oct15.174526.1@eisner>
 <DzDBw3.ILH@world.std.com> <dewar.845506499@merv> <DzFB5z.D6A@world.std.com>
 <dewar.845591699@merv> <32679C86.2FB8@watson.ibm.com> <dewar.845660146@merv>
 <326BBBCA.15AE@watson.ibm.com> <dewar.845939549@merv>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 845983754/12083
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.845939549@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Yes, this will change with 64-bit machines, but I still find it
> surprising that on many machines you have to go to gcc to get decent
> sized integers, and the same is true in the Ada 83 compiler world (did
> ANY Ada 83 compiler implement 64-bit integers routinely?)

As ACT is certainly aware, DEC Ada for Alpha VMS routinely supplies:

   type LONG_INTEGER is {range -2**63 .. 2**63 - 1};
   type INTEGER is {range -2_147_483_648 .. 2_147_483_647};

in order to keep the name "INTEGER" compatible with DEC Ada for VAX VMS.

An INTEGER by any other name would smell just as sweet ?

Larry Kilgallen