From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 28 May 93 21:45:48 GMT
From: deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!digits.enet.dec.com!brett@decw
rl.dec.com  (Bevin R. Brett)
Subject: Re: verdix kisses off Ada
Message-ID: <1993May28.205125.660@dbased.nuo.dec.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993May28.163638.19696@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
 (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>In <1993May28.131626.3612@dbased.nuo.dec.com> brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My na
me is...) writes:
> 
>>VAX Fortran has always had its own code generator.
>>VAX Pascal V1.0 had its own.
>>VAX Pascal V2.0 and later had its own.
> 
>So you're telling me that loop optimization in two independent
>compilers was screwed up in the same way?  Or are you addressing
>strictly the "code generator" part and not the idea of a common
>optimizer? 

I don't think they never shared any code, either in the global optimizer, or th
e
instruction selector, or peepholer.  But they may well have had shared designs
or algorithms because the teams did talk to each other.

>[Could have sworn that DEC told us at the time that all their
> compilers used the same back ends.]

DEC is a large company, and a Sales or Sales Support person may have made such 
a
mistake.  This kind of information is not usually in the Sales Update articles,
Software Product Descriptions, etc. that we use to communicate with our sales
force.

/Bevin