From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: Simple Real_Time.Time_Span question
Date: 1998/10/14
Date: 1998-10-14T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <702b25$30a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 700usk$cht$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
In article <700usk$cht$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> It is odd for a compiler not to choose a sufficient precision for Duration
> to accurately represent a Time_Span value. Certainly in the case of GNAT,
> Duration is represented in nanoseconds, and you will not lose any precision
> following the conversion path you suggest.
I hate to drag my own thread off topic, but how did you do that? According to
9.6(27) Duration has to represent up to 86,400 seconds. For a "classical"
implementation of a fixed-point type that can represent both 86,400 and
0.000_000_001, my poor calculations tell me you'd need at least 47 bits. On a
32-bit processor that would be tricky.
--
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-10-14 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-10-13 0:00 Simple Real_Time.Time_Span question dennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-10-13 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1998-10-13 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie
1998-10-15 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-10-16 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-16 0:00 ` dewar
1998-10-17 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1998-10-14 0:00 ` dewar
1998-10-14 0:00 ` dennison [this message]
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1998-10-15 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox