* Ada vs Interfaces.C types
@ 2003-01-09 0:48 David Holm
2003-01-09 1:28 ` tmoran
2003-01-09 12:21 ` Dale Stanbrough
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Holm @ 2003-01-09 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
//David Holm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
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
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tmoran @ 2003-01-09 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
> 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
No. It it were, Interfaces.C.thosetypes would be pointless confusion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
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
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dale Stanbrough @ 2003-01-09 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
Dale
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
2003-01-09 12:21 ` Dale Stanbrough
@ 2003-01-09 12:54 ` Bobby D. Bryant
2003-01-09 14:01 ` David C. Hoos
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bobby D. Bryant @ 2003-01-09 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:21:46 +0000, Dale Stanbrough 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.
The C unsigned can't possibly correspond to the Ada Integer.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
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
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David C. Hoos @ 2003-01-09 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Stanbrough" <dstanbro@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
> 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?
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs Interfaces.C types
2003-01-09 14:01 ` David C. Hoos
@ 2003-01-09 15:47 ` David Holm
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Holm @ 2003-01-09 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-09 15:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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 is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox