Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 14:23 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
"Second, for a given integer type (such as
natural___XDLU_0_2147483647), the type for the nodes in TYPE_MIN_VALUE
and TYPE_MAX_VALUE really should be a natural___XDLU_0_2147483647.
ie, the type of an integer constant should be the same as the type of
its min/max values."
No, the type of the bounds of a subtype should be the *base type*. That's
how the tree has always looked, as far back as I can remember.
This is because intermediate computations can produce results
outside the subtype range but within the base type range (RM 3.5(6)),
right?
No, it is because this is the way the language is defined, what
other type could the bounds of a subtype have? Clearly they are
not of the subtype itself (that would be a nonsense recursion).
