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_DATE,URG_BIZ
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!inmet!stt
From: stt@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 9X and the NEED for preprocessing
Message-ID: <20600027@inmet>
Date: 18 Dec 89 19:09:00 GMT
References: <629648260@<1825>
Nf-ID: #R:<1825:629648260:inmet:20600027:000:1769
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!stt    Dec 18 14:09:00 1989
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


With regard to Ada preprocessors, and Ada9X:

First of all, preprocessors create no optimization problem,
since they operate at the lexical, or possibly syntactic, level,
long before the optimizer takes a look at the program.

However, I am not a great fan of Ada preprocessors.
We have implemented a compiler system and development tools
for 6 targets and 7 hosts without using a preprocessor.
Our general strategy is to define one or more target/host-independent
package specs with target/host-dependent bodies.
We minimize the size of such packages, and simply reimplement
them for each distinct target/host.

Sometimes, the package spec is target/host-dependent as well,
but only in its definitions, not in the names defined (e.g.,
one host might define the type "Link_Name" as being an 8 character string,
another might define it as being a 30 character string).

The net effect of this approach is that a particular configuration
is determined by a set of source files, not a set of preprocessor
switches.  Also, for cases where we do restrict differences to bodies,
we can select a different configuration at link time by choosing
a distinct "implementation catalog variant" (in Intermetrics AIE-speak),
requiring no recompilation.

Anyway, so much for truth and beauty.  If there is a compelling
argument for a standardized preprocessor, I am sure that the Ada9X
process will be willing to consider it, even though the "official"
public revision request period is over.  The Ada9X process is
going to include a number of public reviews, and the various
project teams working on Ada9X will continue to keep their
ears open for brilliant and/or urgent proposals.

S. Tucker Taft  (Ada9X DR -- aka "distinguished" reviewer)
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138