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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	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 15:28:01 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: Duncan Sands <baldrick@free.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: different compilers: different standard types?????
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:35:57 +0100
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.109.1079651989.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: <c391gu$5c3$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it>
	<mZ86c.30434$JL2.362994@attbi_s03>
	<200403181313.16003.maa@liacc.up.pt>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1079651990 10843 212.85.156.195 (18 Mar
 2004 23:19:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:19:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: amado.alves@netcabo.pt, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt>,
	comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Return-Path: <duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr>
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
In-Reply-To: <200403181313.16003.maa@liacc.up.pt>
Content-Disposition: inline
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:6424
Date: 2004-03-18T20:35:57+01:00

Hi Marius,

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

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.  For example, on a 32 bit processor
64 bit integer arithmetic is slower than 32 bit integer arithmetic.  I expect
that Integer is 64 bits on 64 bit processors...

Ciao,

Duncan.