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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf43a183ce108291
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-10 12:05:27 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!lab.ultra.nyu.edu!kenner
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Government Policy on Ada Acquisitions
Date: 9 Sep 1994 16:41:38 GMT
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <34q382$gjq@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
References: <34n3mk$3c8@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <34nmfo$mpi@jac.zko.dec.com>
 <34pq9h$b87@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lab.ultra.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-09-09T16:41:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <34pq9h$b87@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison) writes:
>However, since GNAT is still unfinished, wouldn't it be MORE unfair to compare
>its optimized code to the code produced by a commercial compiler that has
>fully matured optimization capabilities? Perhaps someone associted with the
>GNAT project could correct me on this point if I'm wrong. I'm sure you are
>absolutely correct as far as comparing two COMMERCIAL compilers.

Well, I don't know what's "fair" here, but I strongly agree with
Bevin's point: it's not a very meaningful comparison.  At the code
generation level, few compiler writers bother to worry about the
quality of unoptimized code.  GNAT uses the GCC backend, where -O
certainly does something.