Re: Representation clause for enumeratives

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:962n4v$fmg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <LRKg6.1443$y03.158823@news.flash.net>,
:   "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
: > As an aside, here's some fun you can have with the following
: package in GNAT
: > 3.12p:
:
: > -- But change it to the following, and you get "value not in
: >range of type
: > 'Standard.Integer'"
: > -- (I only changed the first value to -1; it's not in
: Standard.Integer? :)
: >
: >    for Object use(
: >       -1,
: >       16#7FFF_FFFF#,
: >       16#8000_0000#
: >       );
:
: No, it's the 2**31 value at the end (16#8000_0000#) that
: is not in the range of Standard.Integer. GNAT will use a
: 32 bit unsigned representation if it can, but if you use
: a negative value, you force the use of a signed representation.

Hence the smiley face :) in the prior post :) By the way, this description
of the shifting of the allowable range (selecting different unbiased
representations) would be very useful in the GNAT user guide. I couldn't
find it.

: P.S. The one undesirable behavior in GNAT that I see, and will
: fix is that the error flag is not clearly placed on the
: particular literal that is causing trouble!

Which was also my point.