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,c9629eba26884d78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-09 08:32:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F351410.6080000@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: signature like constructions References: <3F2BA9C8.9030700@noplace.com> <3F337798.2030008@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.71.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1060443164 66.31.71.243 (Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:32:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:32:44 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:32:44 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41281 Date: 2003-08-09T15:32:44+00:00 List-Id: Simon Wright wrote: > At some point you need (a) a machine-independent solution to the > problem, (b) a machine-dependent optimisation. Clearly it's good if > the machine-independent solution is also efficient, but it seems to me > like overkill to write 6 very clever lines in the hope that the > compiler (and future revisions) will always emit one machine code > instruction. Why not use an assembler insert? The LALR tool was used by Honeywell to make compiler front ends. If others in the compiler group made a change to the Multics PL/I compiler that would break it, it would be regarded as a serious bug that would prevent the new compiler version from being installed in the development hierarchy, let alone as part of a shipping compiler. I guess it is just a different way of thinking when you are part of the compiler development team. For example, any changes I make to my code that is part of GNAT will only pass the regression tests if it compiles and runs correctly on all supported systems. Similarly, I can count on any code that works once and makes it into GNAT working always because it will be part of the regression test suite. It is not a joke that the automated regression test suite, which may take hours to run, is one of the most valuable tools a compiler group has. In many cases it would cost less to recreate a compiler from scratch, given the regression suite, than to create a new set of regression tests and the tools to run them. -- "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh