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

[Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> 
> So if you want to define an integral type with a greater range than (the 
> associated with) 32 bits, you have to use Long_Long_Integer as a base. But 
> then you hinder portability, because Long_Long_Integer is not standard.

ARM 3.5.4 says, "An implementation may provide additional predefined 
signed integer types, declared in the visible part of Standard, whose 
first subtypes have names of the form Short_Integer, Long_Integer, 
Short_Short_Integer, Long_Long_Integer, etc."

The operative word is "may". Integer is the only predefined integer type 
required (in Standard). Long_Integer is just as non-standard as 
Long_Long_Integer.

You don't have to use [Long_]Long_Integer as a base. You should declare 
your numeric types based on your application's requirements:

type T is range <application-defined>;

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Run away! Run away!"
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
58