Re: different compilers: different standard types?????

["Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net>]

One other note: I am aware of at least one commercial compiler that doesn't
support integer types larger than 32 bits (ObjectAda V7.2.2 - Intel).

System.Min_Int:-2147483648
System.Max_Int: 2147483647

Steve
(The Duck)

"Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:mailman.110.1079654853.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> > I guess you mean "why doesn't GNAT define Integer to have 64 bits"?
> > I've heard it said that GNAT (in fact gcc) defines Integer to be the
most
> > efficient integer type for the processor....
>
> Yes. I was temporarily amnesic of the fact that the proper way to define
an
> integer of any size is
>
>   type IT is range ...
>
> I was fixated on forms
>
>   subtype ST is Long_Integer range ...
>   type T is new Long_Integer range ...
>
> (I posted this before but seemingly it didn't reach the list.)
>
> Anyway, I now understand that the proper way to define an integer type
with
> the maximum range possible is
>
>   type MI is range System.Min_Int .. System.Max_Int;
>
> /* My natural expectation of Integer was that it would be this type. To a
> layman, 3.5.4 (11) seems to support that. But I guess no. I think Ada is
too
> much complicated here. As in other places. Too many integers (root,
> universal, etc.) And so little time. */
>