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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,904f3551267aacb0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Norman H. Cohen" Subject: Re: How to hide instantiation of Direct_IO? Date: 1997/02/25 Message-ID: <331316F1.7F2C@watson.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 221380798 References: <5dqt5n$j3s$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <330CCC71.DFD@watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ncohen@watson.ibm.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1997-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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