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-Thread: 103376,c3d0e99376a4f379 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:22:59 +0200 From: Gautier User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interested about number crunching in Ada References: <1187235764.909133.180650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <46c49e6e$1_6@news.bluewin.ch> <46c54d1a$1_5@news.bluewin.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.76.177.73 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.76.177.73 Message-ID: <46c6d665_4@news.bluewin.ch> X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1187436133 83.76.177.73 (18 Aug 2007 13:22:13 +0200) Organization: Bluewin AG Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!164.128.36.58!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1479 Date: 2007-08-18T13:22:59+02:00 List-Id: anon: > From GNAT Documentation: The GIGI procedure is defined as Gnat-To-Gnu. Bravo, *that's* the point: GNAT-to-GNU, not GNAT-to-C ! Thank you for finding yourself your mistakes ;-). You are mistaken by the fact that in its early days, GCC was the "GNU C Compiler", but for a long time now it is the "GNU Compiler Collection". > And if you dump each step of the GNAT to object as I stated (see > previous post) you can use a gcc or other gnu compilers to continue > compiling the code. You can also take any other compiler's sources and dump its tables, internal representations for optimizing; and usually commercial compilers (even if you don't have their sources) also offer to dump the assembler code beside the corresponding object code. The fact that the object code is spit by the compiler executable and not by as.exe makes absolutely no difference for the code itself; in compilation time it takes maybe a fraction of second more, that's all. The steps: Source -> Internal representation (tables, tree or whatever) -> Machine code (eventually with 1-to-1 equivalent asm inbetween) are the same on every compiler. The fact that GNAT does it openly and via several executables gives you the impression that it is more complicated; it is just more convenient to do so in the context of the GNU toolchain. Conversely, if the same stuff was packed into a single .exe and there was no documentation about how it works, you would believe that it is simpler because it is all stuffed in a black box. It's a bit naive... >> As for HP Ada, I don't care about politics, only about performance :-). > > Well if HP's Ada performance is like TI's PASCAL. It depends on how > the system is configured. [...] Well, that's the same for all systems. I happend some years ago to compare DEC Fortran and DEC Ada on the same AXP machine with some matrix crunching code. Both timings were very near, which was a compliment for the Ada compiler, but less a surprise when I heard that the compilers back-ends were the same (like for the GNU Compiler Collection ;-) ). That's it. And all this dramatic story about TI Pascal, politics, jobs and money seem very thrilling but (I'm afraid) a bit obscure to me... ______________________________________________________________ Gautier -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/index.htm Ada programming -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!