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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cec20777e0d41ea0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-17 01:38:53 PST Path: nntp.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!inmet!not-for-mail From: Tucker Taft Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Increased Interest In Ada? Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:11:00 -0500 Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Message-ID: <3AB0E994.A2B2D3C6@averstar.com> References: <3A82EFA2.C8756B09@acm.org> <970ma1$1l7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98inu2$1fr$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98kjgv$3j69@news.kvaerner.com> <98lc03$23l$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3AAED3D6.79CEAA7F@acm.org> <3AAFE454.B079E0F1@averstar.com> <98op0t$c4g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: nebula.burl.averstar.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 984672660 13803 141.199.8.77 (15 Mar 2001 16:11:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Mar 2001 16:11:00 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: nntp.stanford.edu comp.lang.ada:91483 Date: 2001-03-15T16:11:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > ... > Personally, I think it would be a *better* idea to have a native Ada > compiler that produced embedable code for some processor, then find an SBC > that used that processor. Gluing an Ada-toC-to-Embedded-Code thing together > is just going to ask for trouble and raise the inevitable question of "Why > don't I just use C, instead of going through all the extra steps & probably > giving up downstream features along the way?..." Actually, one of the interesting things working with the version of our Ada 95 technology that uses C as an intermediate is how it illustrates exactly what you are giving up by going to C. All of the consistency checks performed by Ada at compile-time, plus the additional checks which are performed at run-time when they can't be proved safe by the compiler, are generally all lost when you write in C "by hand." By looking at the generated C you immediately see all the run-time checks that remain, and it makes me cringe to think that people writing by hand in C don't have any of those safety checks performed. And that is *after* our optimizer has already eliminated many of the provably-safe checks. For what it is worth, the "glued together" compiler is actually quite easy to use, and it "feels" like a regular Ada compiler, except that if you want to check up on what the compiler is doing, you can save and look at the generated C code rather than having to look at the generated machine code. By default, the intermediate C code is deleted, so all that is left is a ".obj"/".o" just like a "regular" compiler. > > MDC > > -- > Marin David Condic > Senior Software Engineer > Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com > Enabling the digital revolution > e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com > Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ -- -Tucker Taft stt@avercom.net http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Chief Technology Officer, AverCom Corporation (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA USA (AverCom was formerly the Commercial Division of AverStar: http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)