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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph
From: adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark C. Adolph)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Goto and simulating processors
Message-ID: <2487@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 89 01:53:07 GMT
References: <8901182220.AA10372@ti.com> <4138@hubcap.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4138@hubcap.UUCP>, billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) writes:
>      Any reason you can't use pragma INTERFACE, to C for example?
> 
>      (We're assuming efficiency is SOOOO critical that we absolutely
>       must have the goto...)

Yes, the reason is that I'm *WRITING IN Ada*.  Why should I have to go
out and buy a C cross compiler for my embedded processor, which may or
may not interface with my Ada compilation system, just to get
efficiency?  There is a world of computing outside of the VAX and the
Sun, and in much of that world, efficiency IS soooooo critical.  I think
that I prefer the code in my 747's wind shear detector to be both high
quality and efficient.  Why are they inherently incompatible?

>      C or some other
>      low-level language would be a more appropriate choice for what has
>      got to be the lowest-level application imaginable...

I believe that the whole point of this exercise is to standardize on
*one* language.  If a compiler cannot generate simple, efficient code
from simple, efficient Ada, then that compiler is due for rewriting.
And believe me, I've "had it up to my keister" with just such compilers
lately.

-- 

					-- Mark A.
					...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph