From: "Norman H. Cohen" <ncohen@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: How to hide instantiation of Direct_IO?
Date: 1997/02/25
Date: 1997-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <331316F1.7F2C@watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.856650787@merv
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Norman said
>
> << type Count is range 0 .. System.Max_Int>>
>
> no, not Max_Int, there is no point in introducing 64-bit inefficiency
> here. type Count is new Integer will do just fine in practice.
Perhaps for GNAT, but I believe Dale was looking for a portable
solution, and it is certainly reasonable to presume that some
implementation might use Max_Int'Last as Count'Last (or that the
implementation might use some value other than 2**63-1 for Max_Int).
A 64-bit Count type is quite plausible: In early versions of AIX, one
of the first needs that arose for 64-bit integers was for file offsets.
--
Norman H. Cohen
mailto:ncohen@watson.ibm.com
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-02-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-02-11 0:00 How to hide instantiation of Direct_IO? Dale Stanbrough
1997-02-20 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1997-02-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-02-25 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen [this message]
1997-02-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-02-27 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1997-03-01 0:00 ` Richard Kenner
1997-03-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-03-02 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson
1997-03-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox