Re: 64-bit integers in Ada

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Marin David Condic wrote:
>Its been a while since I've seen a C compiler for a 6502, but my
>recollection is that the last one I did look at had 16 bits for the type
>int. Please correct me if I'm wrong here - have you seen C compilers for
>this target using 8 bits for the type int?

The only C-Compiler for the C64 has a 16bit int, because it's required by
the language (at least now).

>My thinking here is that even for guys programming small computers, an int
>or Integer being required to support at least 16 bits, is a useful
>constraint even if it has to be simulated with software.

Ack for C, nack for Ada. Ada has the ability to specify the type ranges you
need. C hasn't.

>That's why I wouldn't object to the standard requiring that an
>implementation support at least 16 bits - even for small machines. People
>expect it.

No. Ada people expect to define there own types if they need certain ranges.
They expect efficient implementations for those types.

>Going the other direction (requiring support for 64 bits or 128
>bits or unlimited bits) is a different situation in that this might become
>an unreasonable burden on a compiler for a small target. (I'd certainly
>consider it desirable that it be "permissable" - just not "required")

It would be fine the have a minimum requirement for the user defined ranges.
"type uint64 is mod 2**64;" is still a portability problem.