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: 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: "K. Mathias" <kmathias@mindspring.deletethis.com>
Subject: Re: ADA on the super
Date: 1998/04/20
Message-ID: <6hgepl$1eh$1@camel18.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 346093339
References: <6h7v0c$r68$1@bambi.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE> <dewar.892872366@merv>
 <6ha2lu$5cb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.893037728@merv>
X-Server-Date: 20 Apr 1998 21:30:29 GMT
Distribution: inet
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups: comp.sys.super,comp.parallel.mpi,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-20T21:30:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Robert Dewar wrote in message ...
>As for the backend of GCC, actually it is well known for high code quality
>and extensive optimization. On a number of machines, GCC is the most
>efficient code generator available. That certainly does not mean that GCC
>will always generate faster code than competitive compilers on every
>possible program of course. However, a number of our customers chose GNAT
>after extensive benchmarking *because* it was the most effective compiler
>*for their application*.
>


See, this is where I get confused.  Looking once again at the subject line,
I can't figure out why the American Dental Association would need such
high-performance anyway!  Seems to me that a quality compiler such as GNAT
would just be overkill.


(sorry, I just couldn't resist)

<grinning widely>

- Karl Mathias