From: David Holm <david@realityrift.com>
Subject: Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:47:51 GMT
Date: 2003-01-09T15:47:51+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030109164752.621922ad.david@realityrift.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.1042120922.26638.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:01:14 -0600
"David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> > In article <20030109014828.1ba9cb7a.david@realityrift.com>,
> > David Holm <david@realityrift.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > are the following safe to assume?
> > >
> > > Interfaces.C.unsigned = Integer
> > > Interfaces.C.short = Short_Integer
> > > Interfaces.C.C_Float = Float
> > > Interfaces.C.double = Long_Float
> >
> >
> > I think that gnat is based on this assumption, but of course
> > that is only one compiler.
>
> How can an unsigned type of any sort be considered equivalent
> to Integer (a signed type) by any compiler?
I just picked these conversions up from some other bindings.
//David Holm
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-09 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-09 0:48 Ada vs Interfaces.C types David Holm
2003-01-09 1:28 ` tmoran
2003-01-09 12:21 ` Dale Stanbrough
2003-01-09 12:54 ` Bobby D. Bryant
2003-01-09 14:01 ` David C. Hoos
2003-01-09 15:47 ` David Holm [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox