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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 114669,94472ba0fa186a8d
X-Google-Attributes: gid114669,public
X-Google-Thread: 1147fc,94472ba0fa186a8d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1147fc,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,94472ba0fa186a8d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: ADA on the super
Date: 1998/04/19
Message-ID: <6hddrn$fqc@news1.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 345712217
References: <6ha2lu$5cb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: a guest of Shadow Island Games
Newsgroups: comp.sys.super,comp.parallel.mpi,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


stuebi@mail.uni-mainz.de writes:

> It at least shares the back end of GCC, which isn't famous for its
> optimization.

But gcc doesn't do that badly, either. I can name quite a few existing
commercial compilers, generally ones not done by hardware vendors,
which have worse optimization than gcc. gcc even beats Digital's Alpha
Fortran compiler on one of the SPEC95 benchmarks (but loses by about
30% on the rest...) Not bad for a compiler which only recently started
to be tuned against that benchmark suite.

Does Ada have any kind of benchmark suite, preferably composed of real
applications?

> Believe me there is no such thing like a free ADA compiler.
> Free software is worth every cent you pay for it.

If you say so. I'd rather evaluate all software on a case-by-case
basis, and understand its strength and weaknesses. Huge
generalizations are usually wrong.

-- g