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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e56fd2619c02e35a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr40576622pbk.6.1317316140091; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni7634pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Rugxulo Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64 bit codes Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1fbc4bfd-4a41-4352-bd35-e2c1e5b87eeb@de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> References: <4e817fdb$0$7615$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <213da3b7-f9d0-4a7d-b215-9992ee0f1a02@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <2a797a9e-f0e3-4fbe-8f40-b6787b4e2879@o11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <27c75797-a753-4c4c-a16c-501c9ee853b8@n36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1317316139 26516 127.0.0.1 (29 Sep 2011 17:08:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: de2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2,gzip(gfe) Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18198 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2011-09-29T10:08:59-07:00 List-Id: Hi again, On Sep 27, 7:38=A0pm, Rugxulo wrote: > > On Sep 27, 8:48=A0am, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > > > On 32-bit gcc, arithmetic operations (+, *, etc.) on "unsigned long > > long int" certainly all work, but it's inefficient. Anyway the runtime, > > as I have observed in the past, is much higher than I would expect. > > For lack of knowledge I have not attempted to see the actual code > > generated, but I suppose that's done with the help of some low-level > > macros. (By definition, there aren't 64-bit arithmetic instructions on > > 32-bit hardware.) For on 64-bit hardware a native 64-bit arithmetic > > operation shouldn't last very much longer than a corresponding 32-bit > > opeartion, I would think. > > So you want better speed? Well, assuming it's even possible and you > haven't reached a dead end, I imagine you have several realistic > options: > > * use "better" (supported) compiler > > *http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchains%20targetti... > > P.S. I'm not on Win64 right now, so I can't honestly say I've tested > MinGW-64 / Ada there (assuming it exists, oops). But here's > hoping. =A0;-) Well, they (MinGW-w64) do mention Ada on their website, but apparently the only Ada toolset(s) from them are Cygwin-hosted (i.e., installed via Cygwin's setup.exe) and apparently rarely used by them. So the Win64-targeted version (GCC 4.5.3-3) doesn't work (fails to link, undefined reference to gnat_eh_blahblah in libgnat.a), yet the i686 (32-bit) one works fine (only tested simple "hello world"). I've filed a bug report on SourceForge. Not exactly what you wanted to hear, but better than nothing. ;-)