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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bcced006b4956bd6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: How to modify Standard types in GNAT-3.11?
Date: 1999/02/22
Message-ID: <uogmmmlap.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 447134558
References: <7afo84$fgm$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <uiuczpcyy.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <7aijsf$j39$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes:

> In article <uiuczpcyy.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>,
>   Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > tonya@aban.ece.ubc.ca (Tony R. Ambardar) writes:
> >
> > Since you are recompiling the run-time, you can certainly
> > edit any file you want. However, it would be better to
> > simply delete Long_long_Float, since you won't support
> > it. Don't lie and make it not
> > bigger than Long_Float!
> 
> Bad idea! Stephen, I guess you are not that familiar with
> the GNAT run-time library. Long_Long_Float is used in many
> many units, and indeed the expected thing is that it be
> equivalent to Long_Float if IEEE extended is not supported.
> Even doing this equivalence is not so easy!

Well, I admit to being not familiar with the GNAT run-time library. I
was arguing from the general principle "don't declare garbage (at
least where everyone can see it)". However, on reading LRM 3.5.7 (16),
I see that GNAT's expected usage follows the LRM (precision of
Long_Float should be no greater than Long_Long_Float).

In reality, people should always define their own floating point
types, and not rely on Long_Long_Float having any particular meaning.
It just bugs me that this is one very visible area where Ada 95 turns
out to be so ill-defined.

Wouldn't it be better to define System_Max_Float_Type in a
GNAT-specific package, and use that in the run-time library? 


> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own