Re: Studying and Maintaining GNAT, Is There Any Interest in a New Group?

[Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com>]

On Sunday, 26 August 2018 20:54:11 UTC+1, Dan'l Miller  wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-5, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> > <patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > However I am discouraged with what you are saying about the bugs being on
> > > the compiler side and not so much in the RTS.
> > 
> > It’s more the bugs are in the Ada front end, not the GCC backend, which is
> > the codegen.
> 
> Although it might be quibbling over the definition of “front-end” and “back-end”, it is my belief that the vast majority of the bugs outside of the runtime is either:

There is no quibbling, I was pointing out his error in what he thought was what.

< removed rambling >

> On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 5:05:52 PM UTC-5, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> > A new compiler needs a radical new design.
> 
> Luke, GIGI is the general vicinity for fulfilling your prophetic prediction of the future:  A radical new Ada-compiler design would eliminate the tree-transducer's transcription of snippets of Ada's semantically-adorned AST (in Ada-language source code) into GENERIC/GIMPLE C/C++ semantic tree (in C-language 

What are you going on about?

>source code).  In short, a radical new Ada-compiler design would eliminate GIGI.  Luke & Shark8 take especial note:  eliminate the need for GIGI entirely, then one has a drastically entirely-different-than-GNAT design for a next-gen 

That's exactly the point, it would be a completely different design, a completely different compiler, hence nothing from GCC/GNAT.

>Ada compiler.  Luke, despite your ridicule of studying Ada's antiquity, •that• elimination of GIGI is precisely why studying William Wulf's DIANA from decades ago is intellectually stimulating & rewarding as getting the creative juices flowing in the mind when contemplating what a next-gen Ada compiler might have 

I never said anything about not learning from DIANA, I said don't implement it. Reason is simple, it was designed using Ada83, we have OO now and OO fits a compiler perfectly and would be a hell of a lot nicer than a bunch of variant records/enums.


>at its heart instead of the bug-prone complication that GNAT has at its heart:  AdaAST-GIGI-C/C++AST, 2 separate trees and a transducer-of-clever-snippets between them.  (I suspect sometimes the scope of that cleverness there in GIGI is insufficiently narrow/not-omniscient-enough, hence mistranscription bug.)

What the hell are you on about????
 
< removed >