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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!km38# From: km38#@andrew.cmu.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Fixed point reals Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 21:35:50 EST Article-I.D.: andrew.MS.V3.18.km38.80021108.allentown.ibm032.3469.1 Posted: Tue Feb 24 21:35:50 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 05:40:29 EST Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University ReSent-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 00:38:08 est ReSent-From: postman#@andrew.cmu.edu ReSent-To: nntp-xmit#@andrew.cmu.edu Return-path: To: outnews#ext.nn.comp.lang.ada@andrew.cmu.edu List-Id: I have access to two compilers, who behave completely differently. With the following declaration, type REAL is delta 0.01; the first one accepts it, and the other one says 48 type REAL is delta 0.01; .......................1 %ADAC-E-FIXTYPERANGE, (1) A fixed point type declaration requires a range constraint I think the second compiler is right in signaling an error, but what about the first compiler? It is validated with ACVC 1.5. Thanks, --Magnus Arpa: magnus@andrew.cmu.edu UUCP: seismo!andrew.cmu.edu!magnus