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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4751d44ff54a2c2c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-02 00:40:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!lutz From: lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64-bit integers in Ada Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: IKS GmbH Jena Message-ID: References: <3CE3978F.6070704@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> <3D46DC69.7C291297@adaworks.com> <5ee5b646.0207301613.5b59616c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 1028273515 945 217.17.192.37 (2 Aug 2002 07:31:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:31:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27601 Date: 2002-08-02T07:31:55+00:00 List-Id: * 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.