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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e56fd2619c02e35a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.33.71 with SMTP id p7mr28356171pbi.1.1317128946425; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni5971pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64 bit codes Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <4e817fdb$0$7615$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <213da3b7-f9d0-4a7d-b215-9992ee0f1a02@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <2a797a9e-f0e3-4fbe-8f40-b6787b4e2879@o11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1317128946 17034 127.0.0.1 (27 Sep 2011 13:09:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197; posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-Via: ICAP/1.0 192.168.152.2 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCVNK X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101206 Red Hat/3.6-2.el5 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2011-09-27T06:09:06-07:00 List-Id: Mok-Kong Shen wrote on comp.lang.ada: > I have some computations that would be much more efficient, if done > with 64-bit arithmetics ("natively") than with 32-bit arithmetics > and I don't like to take the trouble/"risk" of having a 2nd OS on my > PC (I don't think currently to possess even the proper knowledge to > do that at all). I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "64-bit arithmetic". If you require 64-bit addresses, then yes you need a 64-bit compiler. But if you only need 64-bit floating point numbers, the 32-bit compiler can provide them just fine. In fact, on Intel hardware, Long_Floats are normally 80 bits wide IIRC. Similarly, I think Long_Long_Integer is 64 bits wide even with a 32-bit compiler. > On the other hand, as outsider I surmise that providing a 64-bit > Windows version doesn't involve much work, since there is already a > 32-bit version. It's essentially just a replacement of the included > gcc from the 32-bit version to the 64-bit version, isn't it? No, there is more to it than that. Given that most of GNAT is written in Ada, one requires a 64-bit Ada compiler to produce the first 64-bit Ada compiler; that's the classic catch-22 aka bootstrapping process. In the case of GNAT, this problem is exacerbated by the requirement to also bootstrap the run-time library. I see that GNAT Pro[1] supports 64-bit Windows; this means that they have completed the bootstrapping process already. So, if AdaCore tell you that the GPL 2011 Edition simply won't support 64-bit, and you are impatient, and really need a 64-bit version of GNAT, you should ask AdaCore to provide GNAT Pro to you. [1] http://www.adacore.com/home/products/gnatpro/supported_platforms/ -- Ludovic Brenta.