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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b12a5cee4778f63
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: GNAT & GCC performace (bad news)
Date: 1999/12/03
Message-ID: <1999Dec3.103807.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 556242267
References: <B46CA6A1.2991%Harald.Schmidt@tomcat.de>
 <38473D90.68D8F47@acenet.com.au>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 944235490 10041 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38473D90.68D8F47@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> writes:

> Gnat is a true compiler. It does not translate to-C(++).

The second statement does not prove the first.

>From what I have read in this newsgroup, it emits assembly language
which then must be fed through an assembler on the machine.

To me this does not make Gnat any more (or any less) of a "true"
compiler than the Averstar product(?) that _does_ emit C (and
like Gnat got validated).

Larry Kilgallen