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: 103376,1d575f572a099528
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-03 00:50:02 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is faster Ada or C?
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:49:44 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3c0b3bc8.334020@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <3c08314d$0$158$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de>
 <pdxu1vb67fq.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1007369351 nnrp-10:28038 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17327
Date: 2001-12-03T08:49:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 01 Dec 2001 03:43:53 +0200, aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen) wrote:

>Depends heavily on the compiler, really.

And the application.

>(Also, I would imagine that with Ada's strong typing, the compiler can
>do better optimizations than an average C compiler. However, I don't
>have any evidence for this...)

It's been mentioned before on a couple of occasions, but Tartan (as
was) wrote a paper identifying why their Ada compiler produced faster
code than assembler. As far as I can remember, many of the points
raised related to optimisation and, in particular, how the use of
package specifications allowed them to make valid assumptions that had
an positive impact on the optimisations they could use. C compilers
were, as far as I remember, also mentioned.