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

["Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

> 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. */