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,d7ae8269a4ecf7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Prevalence of Compilers for Which Integer'Size < 32?
Date: 1996/07/28
Message-ID: <Dv9JAE.D23@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170647225
references: <dmarshalDv4vLI.D6E@netcom.com> <4tdp24$5h1@news.pacifier.com>
 <dmarshalDv8t9y.Bq8@netcom.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dmarshalDv8t9y.Bq8@netcom.com>,
Dave Marshall <dmarshal@netcom.com> wrote:
>type Seconds_In_A_Day is range 0 .. 86_400;
>
>This is going to work fine for compilers for which Integer'Size is 32,
>but it will fail for compilers for which Integer'Size = 16.  

No, that's not quite right.  The largest integer range supported has
nothing to do with the range of Integer.  A compiler could have:

    type Integer is range -2**15..2**15-1;

and still support:

    type Seconds_In_A_Day is range 0 .. 60*60*24;

(Why does everybody in this thread like literals so much?)

or:

    type Huge_Positive is range 1..10**100; -- unlikely, I admit

So the *real* question you want to ask is, "Do all compilers support at
least 32-bit integers?"  Well, I don't know for sure, but I certainly
assume that in the code I write.  I simply wouldn't buy a compiler that
didn't (even for a 16-bit machine).

I believe that all versions of GNAT support 64-bit integers.

- Bob