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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_NUMERIC_TLD,
	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,d7ae8269a4ecf7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: steved@pacifier.com@199.2.117.163  (Steve Doiel)
Subject: Re: Prevalence of Compilers for Which Integer'Size < 32?
Date: 1996/07/28
Message-ID: <4tg4eq$qj1@news.pacifier.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170823068
references: <dmarshalDv4vLI.D6E@netcom.com> <4tdp24$5h1@news.pacifier.com>
 <dmarshalDv8t9y.Bq8@netcom.com>
organization: Pacifier BBS, Vancouver, Wa.  ((360) 693-0325)
reply-to: steved@pacifier.com  (Steve Doiel)
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dave Marshall writes:
>My specific question revolves around something such as this example
>that you'll find in a lot of time-handling packages.
>
>type Seconds_In_A_Day is range 0 .. 86_400;
>
>This is going to work fine for compilers for which Integer'Size is 32,
>but it will fail for compilers for which Integer'Size = 16.  Of
>course, this is because the above statement is equivalent to
>
>type some_anonymous_integer_type is new Integer;
>subtype Seconds_In_A_Day is some_anonymous_integer_type range 0 ..86400;
>
>If Integer'Last is 65535, ka-bloowie.

I certainly do not expect this behaviour.  I expect the compiler to choose a
suitably sized integer representation (perhaps a long integer) to represent the
range given.  If no such representation exists then I expect some sort of a
"not supported by this implemetation" error.

Steve Doiel