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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI
	autolearn=unavailable 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 05:37:32 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: different compilers: different standard types?????
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:13:15 +0000
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.107.1079616931.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: <c391gu$5c3$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it>
	<mZ86c.30434$JL2.362994@attbi_s03>
Reply-To: amado.alves@netcabo.pt
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1079616932 32338 212.85.156.195 (18 Mar
 2004 13:35:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:35:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Return-Path: <maa@liacc.up.pt>
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
In-Reply-To: <mZ86c.30434$JL2.362994@attbi_s03>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup"
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6403
Date: 2004-03-18T13:13:15+00:00

I have a related problem, at least with GNAT 3.15p, the compiler of all u=
s=20
poor academics.

The standard requires that "the range of Integer should be no wider than =
that=20
of Long_Integer" 3.5.4 (25). (I'm not sure this is an intelligent limitat=
ion,=20
but never mind.) GNAT defines Integer and Long_Integer for 32-bit, and=20
Long_Long_Integer for 64-bit.

So if you want to define an integral type with a greater range than (the=20
associated with) 32 bits, you have to use Long_Long_Integer as a base. Bu=
t=20
then you hinder portability, because Long_Long_Integer is not standard.

So I guess my question is: Why does not GNAT define Integer (and Long_Int=
eger)=20
for 64-bits? AFAICS the standard does not impose a upper limit on Integer=
=2E=20
And don't tell me the answer is: Because then Short_Integer would have=20
32-bits, and that is not what the C world calls short.

Thanks.