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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!gatech!hubcap!billwolf From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Goto and simulating processors Message-ID: <4138@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 19 Jan 89 17:43:33 GMT References: <8901182220.AA10372@ti.com> Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu List-Id: >From article <8901182220.AA10372@ti.com>, by linnig@skvax1.csc.ti.com: > You might want to SIMULATE the execution of a microcode processor by > translating the microcode into Ada. The compiled Ada code would execute > much faster than it would if you interpreted the microcode each line at > runtime. Such simulated execution could be combined with the Ada code for > the controlling scalar processor to simulate the entire system. If the > microcode contained GOTO's, then the microcode GOTO could be translated > directly to an Ada GOTO. Any reason you can't use pragma INTERFACE, to C for example? (We're assuming efficiency is SOOOO critical that we absolutely must have the goto...) > Such a simulation would also be easy to port to another machine (assuming > an Ada compiler existed on that machine). True, but being able to port a very narrowly defined application area is a very small benefit compared to the big negatives presented by the use of the GOTO construct. Besides, I don't think you'll find much non-standardization with respect to the GOTO; either you have it or you don't, and it's so easy to provide that it's rarely, if ever, omitted from languages which provide it. C or some other low-level language would be a more appropriate choice for what has got to be the lowest-level application imaginable... Bill Wolfe wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu