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-Thread: 103376,509f8e43dc081fde
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Simulation of fixed point in c WITH DIFFERENT BIT-WIDTH
Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:47:24 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccu0etyhar.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1130690498.388857.225170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <1130690498.388857.225170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <dka579$8fc$1@hudsucker.umdac.umu.se> <m2veza9s3k.fsf@grendel.local>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1131025644 7971 192.74.137.71 (3 Nov 2005 13:47:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6140
Date: 2005-11-03T08:47:24-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> I'm not sure what is actually required for portability here. AARM95
> 3.5.9(22-24) says
> 
>    The base range of an ordinary fixed point type need not include the
>    specified bounds themselves so that the range specification can be
>    given in a natural way, such as:
> 
>    type Fraction is delta 2.0**(-15) range -1.0 .. 1.0;
> 
>    With 2's complement hardware, such a type could have a signed
>    16-bit representation, using 1 bit for the sign and 15 bits for
>    fraction, resulting in a base range of -1.0 .. 1.0-2.0**(-15).

This is a language design flaw, in my opinion.  "T'Last in T" and
"T'Last in T'Base" should both always be true.  If you want 16 bits, you
should say "-1.0 .. 1.0-2.0**(-15)."  After all, we don't play these
games with integers -- if you say "range -2**15..2**15", you get at
least 17 bits (probably 32 bits).

The "need not" in the above wording means that the implementation has a
choice.  It can include 1.0 in the base range of Fraction, or not.
Some implementations will include the upper bound if and only if it
does not require extra bits.  I think that kind of non-portability
is unhelpful to programmers.

- Bob