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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ed Falis Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada Date: 1996/03/26 Message-ID: <31582A63.4BE9@east.thomsoft.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144350446 sender: news@thomsoft.com references: <4ikbar$g0k@tpd.dsccc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Thomson Software Products mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article <4iupk7$5t4@tpd.dsccc.com> kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Cline) writes: > > > BTW, what architectures does ObjectAda support, and will ObjectAda > > code compile largely unmodified with Gnat, and vice versa? > > A Thompson guy could better answer this. I would be surprised > if Gnat and ObjectAda didn't compile things with little or no > modification. Heck, I've taken large chuncks of VAX Ada and moved > them to Gnat with no changes. Of course, these did not have any > OS specific stuff in them. > Well, I'll give it a shot. This year, it'll be Wintel, PowerPC/Win NT, Sun/Solaris, HP-UX and (I believe) PowerPC/AIX. We also expect Wintel cross to 32 bit X86 this year. Various PowerPC and 68K cross early next year. My experience so far is that the ability to cross compile code developed on GNAT or ObjectAda is pretty good - the main issues are in a couple of areas: one or other of the front-ends is a bit stronger in "corners" of the language, availability of identical bindings, and application use of implementation defined pragmas (Unchecked_Union definitely comes to mind, per discussion on another thread). On the other hand, there are an awful lot of issues that we used to see with Ada 83 compilers that just aren't there any more, especially such things as vendor defined unsigned types, low-level operations on addresses, shift operations etc. And these latter issues have always been the real ugly ones I've seen - where client code is calling "vendor_x_system.ought_to_have_been_defined_in_the_standard;" and it has to be reorganized or changed in hundreds of places. Obviously this was poor design, but Ada 95 will still help with its more uniform treatment of these kinds of issues. - Ed Ed Falis Thomson Software falis@thomsoft.com (617) 221-7341 ======================================================== Ideological disarmament: a koan for the 21st century ========================================================