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,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 16:12:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Marius Amado Alves" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: different compilers: different standard types????? Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:07:00 -0800 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <200403181313.16003.maa@liacc.up.pt> <200403182035.57424.baldrick@free.fr> 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 1079654854 17220 212.85.156.195 (19 Mar 2004 00:07:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:07:34 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2004 00:07:26.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[2955D7E0:01C40D46] 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6425 Date: 2004-03-19T00:07:00-08:00 > 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. */