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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd3300f3a56e7f45
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-18 19:29:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s52.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: 
 <c391gu$5c3$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it><mZ86c.30434$JL2.362994@attbi_s03><200403181313.16003.maa@liacc.up.pt><200403182035.57424.baldrick@free.fr>
 <mailman.110.1079654853.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Subject: Re: different compilers: different standard types?????
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <UOt6c.39022$po.328182@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.111.157
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1079666996 24.20.111.157 (Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:29:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:29:56 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:29:56 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6428
Date: 2004-03-19T03:29:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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. */
>