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,ef33c33c4f98bde1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Tarjei Jensen" Subject: Re: Compiler for Z80/6510 Date: 1999/11/26 Message-ID: <81lhs4$j581@ftp.kvaerner.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 553232402 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <383c6fed.458467@news.fiam.net> <81k67s$47l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <383DC86C.19A6F176@australia.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Organization: Kv�rner Group IT Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Peter Milliken wrote >I am curious, on the one hand we have this paper (advertised in the Ada >Home page) and on the other hand, experienced compiler writers such as >yourself. These statements seem to contradict each other. I do not have >any experience in compiler writing but I have been prepared to accept >the paper at it's face value (having no way to confirm or deny :-)). Did >Lawlis and Elam get it wrong? Were they correct for their particular >circumstances and environment? I have shown the paper to non Ada >software engineers and received various responses, the worst being open >ridicule and statements that the paper must be a pure fabrication. If my memory is right, they did this on a signal processor. Assembly language programming on such a device is supposed to be very difficult. There are a lot of problems with scheduling of instructions and rather arcane rules for what can be done. It is easy for a compiler to keep track of these rules, but hard for humans. This of course does not apply to ordinary processors. So keep this in mind when reading the paper. Greetings,