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: 103376,81cf52699486abe7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Code size of Ada ? was Re: Ada95 Strengths/Weaknesses.
Date: 1999/10/19
Message-ID: <380C9D99.610F9614@mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 537985258
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <37F91D6E.58685CFE@mitre.org> <7tf7uo
 <37FBA978.A86762F1@mitre.org> <5OkO3.2$1e.659@typhoon.nyu.edu>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.mitre.org
X-Trace: top.mitre.org 940350572 14829 129.83.41.77 (19 Oct 1999 16:29:32 GMT)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Oct 1999 16:29:32 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-10-19T16:29:32+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Richard Kenner wrote:
  
> You seem to be characterizing Alpha as a hard-to-program chip, but I wouldn't
> agree with that.

   Neither would I.

>       Some of the later models had complex enough multi-issue
> rules that instruction scheduling was quite complex, but that's only
> fairly recent.  The problem with Alpha early on was simply that the original
> DEC compilers generated appalling quality of code, but I did the original
> GCC port to the Alpha and it wasn't a particularly hard port to do.

   As I remember it, the C compiler did generate appalling code, but
most of the other early compilers were merely poor, characteristic of a
new architecture. 

-- 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...