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: 1997/04/07
Message-ID: <5i9r5t$nb6@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231207314
References: <33436B29.41C6@sema-grenoble.fr> <E833ux.337@world.std.com>
 <dewar.860115718@merv> <5i243c$i1h@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <dewar.860160369@merv>
 <5i4jok$qiq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <dewar.860361046@merv>
Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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

>But we are talking here about generating very low level C, which will for
>instance have to reflect various requirements for the ABI in which it
>is generated (e.g. length of standard types, representation of types,
>calling sequence rules etc). 

Why will the C generated C code have to reflect ABI requirements?
Does conformance to the Ada standard require using a particular ABI?
Can't an Ada implementation make up its own ABI?

--
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.