🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rgh.811775925@camo>, Richard G. Hash <rgh@shell.com> writes:
|> In <43jsfd$1ea@nntp.nta.no> ohk@hal.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen TF.E/DELAB) writes:
|> > Btw, I don't particulary like the lack of specification of basic types like int,
|> > short, etc. in C/C++ either, and Ada isn't much better, which we discovered when
|> > using a validated Ada compiler which only had 16 bit int's, even though the CPU
|> > on which it was running had a 32 bit CPU!
|> > 
|> > Ole-Hj. Kristensen
|> 
|> So what you really mean is that the implementation of Ada that you had isn't much
|> better. Don't blame an entire language for the sins of a single lousy compiler!
|> In general, you can specify your layout quite precisely in Ada, and if the compiler
|> cannot handle it, you'll find out at compile-time. If you wanted to guarantee
|> exactly 32 bits ints on every platform you ported to, you should have defined your
|> own Int32 type, like:
|>    Int_Last : constant := 2 ** 31 -1;
|>    Int_First : constant := -Int_Last;
|>    type Int32 is range Int_first .. Int_last;
|> If your compiler could not comply you'll find out at compile time. (Sounds like
|> you need a better compiler, there are lots out there.)
|> 
|> --
|> Richard G. Hash        phone: (713) 245-731          email: rgh@shell.com
|> Subsurface Information Technology Services, Shell Services Company
|> When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Yes, this is what we did. It also meant that we had to redefine every operator,
if I remember correctly, and that no library functions which expected an integer
would accept our integer. I can see that my post could be taken to mean that we
were unable to define our own 32 bit integer, I should have said that the
standard integer was only 16 bits, although it ran on a 32 bit machine. The
compiler was validated, and as you say, the Ada language does not specify the
number of bits in an integer.