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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,37b5f16b9be86fec
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: ada -> C translator
Date: 1997/04/04
Message-ID: <5i243c$i1h@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230585033
References: <33436B29.41C6@sema-grenoble.fr> <E833ux.337@world.std.com>
 <dewar.860115718@merv>
Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Bob Duff said
>
><<First, what do you want:
>
>1. Do you want it to handle the entire Ada language correctly?
>
>2. Do you want it to produce C that is understandable to humans (e.g. C
>programmers)?  (I.e. do you want a compiler that happens to produce C,
>and you'll maintain the Ada code, or do you want to throw away the Ada
>code, and maintain the C code?)
>
>3. Do you want the C code to be efficient?
>>>
>
>To this you should add a fourth question:
>
>4. Do you want the C code to be portable?
>
>If you get into the business of generating very low level C code, then
>it may well be highly target dependent (e.g. have made decisions about
>representation of primitive data items).

Yep, if you want efficiency, you may need to use machine-dependent
code.  However, you can get this without sacrificing portability
if you keep the less efficient but portable C code as a fallback.

	#if THIS_SYSTEM_SUPPORTS_IT
	... nonportable efficient code ...
	#else
	... portable but not-so-efficient code ...
	#endif

Of course, this assumes that the answer to question 2 was "no".

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.