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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <269c3e60-3483-497e-9aac-1b8922e9e188@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
References: <b6t5855cc2epg9h3s1qb9ulm96bp3pfphk@4ax.com>
 <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
	<wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <850893f5-46e5-443f-af0f-f16eef5cfa37@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
	<hm5885t02rttpp8lppg5gtib804at4tca8@4ax.com>
 <ea76ae4c-11c2-4986-ab72-78f5ece43a76@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
	<v7ha85hhe7d4npss2r4974s6kbv41jq1gh@4ax.com>
 <57766742-5e6e-4b68-8094-57db1fa8951d@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
	<2kra85p2lsrd7200mcfr9fn65s123468br@4ax.com>
 <625c577b-9097-4a8d-a9cb-dd986dd81f89@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
	<77fhm.99283$cf6.88808@newsfe16.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.205.133.144
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250262722 31231 127.0.0.1 (14 Aug 2009 15:12:02
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:02 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.205.133.144;
	posting-account=GwkXCgoAAABFSG45Q--uHVZG6zn6ec-e
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.0.11)
	Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7793
Date: 2009-08-14T08:12:02-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Aug 14, 11:09=A0am, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> REH wrote:
>
> I believe it is technically acceptable for an implementation of
> =A0> standard C for sizeof(int) to be larger than sizeof(long).
>
> This is tightened up in C++. The C++ standard says, in 3.9.1/2,
> =A0 =A0 =A0There are four signed integer types: =93signed char=94,
> =A0 =A0 =A0=93short int=94, =93int=94, and =93long int.=94 In this list,
> =A0 =A0 =A0each type provides at least as much storage as those
> =A0 =A0 =A0preceding it in the list.

Right, that's what I said (or meant to say).

REH