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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd3300f3a56e7f45
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-18 06:18:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!195.129.110.21.MISMATCH!bnewsfeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.worldonline.be!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: different compilers: different standard types?????
Date: 18 Mar 2004 15:21:46 +0100
Organization: Worldonline Belgium
Sender: lbrenta@deuteronomy
Message-ID: <87hdwmnslh.fsf@insalien.org>
References: <c391gu$5c3$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it>
 <mZ86c.30434$JL2.362994@attbi_s03>
 <mailman.107.1079616931.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-62-235-74-137.tiscali.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.worldonline.be 1079619531 20177 62.235.74.137 (18 Mar 2004
 14:18:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldonline.be
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:18:51 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6404
Date: 2004-03-18T15:21:46+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> writes:

> I have a related problem, at least with GNAT 3.15p, the compiler of
> all us poor academics.
> 
> The standard requires that "the range of Integer should be no wider
> than that of Long_Integer" 3.5.4 (25). (I'm not sure this is an
> intelligent limitation, but never mind.)

Basically, this means that by definition, Long_Integer is at least as
long as Integer.  It's not really a limitation, but a definition of
terms.

> GNAT defines Integer and Long_Integer for 32-bit, and
> Long_Long_Integer for 64-bit.
> 
> So if you want to define an integral type with a greater range than
> (the associated with) 32 bits, you have to use Long_Long_Integer as
> a base. But then you hinder portability, because Long_Long_Integer
> is not standard.
> 
> So I guess my question is: Why does not GNAT define Integer (and
> Long_Integer) for 64-bits? AFAICS the standard does not impose a
> upper limit on Integer.  And don't tell me the answer is: Because
> then Short_Integer would have 32-bits, and that is not what the C
> world calls short.

It's not because of C, it's because in your case, GNAT targets a
32-bit processor.  This means that, if you recompile GNAT to target a
64-bit machine, Integer and Long_Integer should become 64 bits wide.

You may also want to try -gnatdm, debug.adb says this forces
Long_Integer to be 64 bits wide on all targets, but it also warns that
this flag may cause other problems.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.