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,cf34599caf2fa938
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: GNAT function calling overhead
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <1995Apr7.185622.9614@eisner.decus.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070439
references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr> <D6nA9u.Hq7@nntpa.cb.att.com>
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <D6nA9u.Hq7@nntpa.cb.att.com>, ka@socrates.hr.att.com (Kenneth Almquist) writes:

> I hope that GNAT funding will cover a bunch of performance tuning, but
> unimplemented features and bug fixing presumably have higher priority

Actually, I would hope GNAT funds would be devoted toward correctness
on the largest possible number of platforms.  Then let commercial
vendors sell high-performance compilers to those who need high performance.