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: 103376,4751d44ff54a2c2c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-31 00:41:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64-bit integers in Ada Date: 31 Jul 2002 02:41:45 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <9eS5NdVqufSh@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <3CE3978F.6070704@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> <3D46DC69.7C291297@adaworks.com> <5ee5b646.0207301613.5b59616c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1028100690 24842 192.135.80.34 (31 Jul 2002 07:31:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27507 Date: 2002-07-31T02:41:45-06:00 List-Id: In article , Keith Thompson writes: > dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: >> Richard Riehle wrote in message >> news:<3D46DC69.7C291297@adaworks.com>... >> > Robert, >> > >> > We still have quite a few embedded platforms for which 64 bit >> > integers are not supported. >> >> There is no reason for hardware support here, even the ia32 >> does not have hardware support, but 64-bit integers are >> very useful and must be supported, just as floating-point >> MUST be supported even on processors with no floating-point. > > For certain values of "must". I'm fairly sure that the Ada standard > does not require support for 64-bit integers, and I've worked with Ada > implementations that didn't support anything bigger than 32 bits > (System.Max_Int = 2**31-1). > > If you want to argue that such an implementation is broken (even > though it's conforming), I won't disagree. Do you mean Ada has not defined its own counterintuitive meaning for the term "broken" ? :-)