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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64-bit unsigned integer? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:39:27 +0100 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: <421d1598-68d7-4d0b-b596-6e9c59cf865c@googlegroups.com> <877eqxe7u8.fsf@nightsong.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: TKk5kT01+2w6guVcOjcsiQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: fr Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50703 Date: 2018-02-28T11:39:27+01:00 List-Id: Le 28/02/2018 à 11:17, Paul Rubin a écrit : > Having an unsigned int type that 1) uses all the bits in the machine > word, and 2) errors on overflow, plus a separd Word type that wraps > around, seems like the right way to do things. Oh well. That would certainly raise many issues. For example, this type would certainly not have a unary minus... and if a negative result is found in intermediate calculations, C_E should be raised. Totally different arithmetic => a new kind of integer type. Just for the sake of a single (albeit important sometimes) use case. -- J-P. Rosen Adalog 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00 http://www.adalog.fr