Re: OS Bindings (was: Where is the elusive jump command?)

["Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com>]

Robert A Duff wrote
>Also because System.Max_Int is 2**63-1 or 2**31-1 on most
>implementations, and there's a rule saying that the bounds have to be
>less than or equal to System.Max_Int.
>
>If I made the rules, there would be no Max_Int.


Then I change the declaration to

type T is range 0 ..  #16#ffff_ffff_ffff_ffff;

If the compiler complains because the number is out of range for an integer if
it otherwise supports 64 bit numbers I think the compiler has been poorly
constructed. As long as the lower bound is 0 or positive then it is quite clear
that it is a unsigned type. It seems pointless to involve max_int in this
unless we are talking about a signed number.

I don't care about the T base type. I think that the above definition is
perfectly reasonable even though it may be contrary to the letter of the
standard.

I think it is a glaring oversight in the standard if it not only allows, but
requires compilers to honour a definition like the one above. I don't have the
final version of the RM here, only the June 94 version.

Greetings,