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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-11 06:13:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:13:13 +0200 From: Erlo Haugen <_elh_@_terma_._com_> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C bug of the day Message-ID: <20030611151313.00007320._elh_@_terma_._com_> References: <20030611114948.00000bcc._elh_@_terma_._com_> <20030611125000.000018b5._elh_@_terma_._com_> <20030611132925.000001ea._elh_@_terma_._com_> <20030611143832.00000a74._elh_@_terma_._com_> Organization: Terma A/S X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.3.0; Win32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.242.55.242 X-Trace: 1055337226 dread11.news.tele.dk 5141 62.242.55.242 X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38985 Date: 2003-06-11T15:13:13+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:59:57 +0200 Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > Erlo Ha > > Well, just because Ada hides pointers from the programmer to a large > amount that doesn't mean, it does not have them at all. > > This is more an compiler implementation issue. IMO, as an example, a > good thing is that an Ada compiler would be free to choose whether a > parameter to a function is given by value or by reference, depending > on what seems more efficient either for time or space optimizations. > Assuming a rather good optimizing compiler, the compiler's choice > could actually be the better one. In C the compiler is bound to > implement the programmer's choice, whether is seems efficient or not. > > Of course, it could also be the other way around. ;) > You are quite right, most modern compilers are extremely good at optimization. I have seen generated code that I by no means would try to do better by hand, even on a processor that I know as well as my own backyard. > >> Or do you mean, that programming HLL on those machines is quite > >> inefficient in general? > >> > >If the ram area is small and the registers awkward, yes. (MC68705 in variuos > >versions comes to mind.) > > Well, in that case, ACK. > Actually, that was what I meant to say in my first posting :-) Guess I didn't succeed very well. Erlo -- Remove the underscores