Re: ada -> C translator

[ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>I perfectly understand why someone who does not know much about compilers
>would try to maintain, as Fergus does, a view that portable C is portable
>C and that should be that, but I am afraid that this viewpoint is plain
>wrong when applied at this level!

As Fergus has pointed out, only a bit more modestly, he actually knows
quite a lot about compilers, and is currently _working_ on a delivered
compiler for a rather interesting language, which compiler generates C.
The Mercury group want the best performance they can get out of the
code they generate, which means they are interested in code that adapts
to the target appropriately.  The possible point of difference here is
that Mercury programmers expect the *same* semantics for their programs
whenever possible; if I compile a Mercury program on UNIX machine X and
get one set of results, I expect the _same_ results on UNIX machine Y.

Nor has Fergus said that "portable C is portable C and that is that".
His claim, as I understood it, was that one can translate a source
program that is intended to be portable to C that can adapt to particular
targets but is usable on many.  Talking about interfacing to COBOL misses
_his_ point, because in that case the source program isn't _intended_ to
be portable (the porting target might not _have_ a COBOL compiler).


-- 
Will maintain COBOL for money.
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.