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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Compiling Ada into C Summary: Ada -> C? Portability, of course. Message-ID: <49@obie.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 88 02:03:10 GMT References: <2460@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: UinTech, Layton, UT List-Id: In article <2460@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>, neff@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Randy Neff) writes: > Why do people want to compile Ada into C? Your nine observations that follow this question are correct. They are also obvious. If you were writing an Ada compiler that compiled to assembly code, or directly to object code, you would also have to take all of this into account. The simple fact is C is much more portable than any assembler. If you write an Ada compiler that compiles to Rolm 1666 assembler, the compiler can only generate code for the 1666 and similar processors. If you write it to produces C, you can run it on many processors, you just have to port the executable (probably written in C itself) to the target machine. -- /\ - " Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!utah-gr! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - uplherc!sp7040! / U i n T e c h \ - Isaac Asimov - obie!wes