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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,31d67020d4b04d5b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: Simple Real_Time.Time_Span question
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <702b25$30a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400961643
References: <6vvsgo$rvo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <700usk$cht$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Oct 14 14:04:53 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1998-10-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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