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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ffce418d7a49585f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-24 16:55:04 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!annwfn!annwfn!merlin From: merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) Subject: Re: C++ bashing (was Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 14:53:13 -0400 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: <85BA331C6A0@annwfn.com> References: <35nlhb$6u0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> Organization: Is For People Who Don't Have Real Work X-Newsreader: Newsy 0.22 Date: 1994-09-24T14:53:13-04:00 List-Id: In <35nlhb$6u0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu Robert Dewar writes: > >I would not quite put C-Front in the same category as GNAT. The big difference >is whether you are generating source code as an intermediate step. The >wword preprocessor is normally reserved for translator systems that do >generate intermediate source. In no sense whatever does GNAT generate C, >it links directly to the GCC backend, and by no stretch of the imagination >can GNAT be called a preprocessor (if GNAT is a preprocessor, so are all >the front ends of GCC, including C itself). Well, that *does* make C a 'preprocessor', since most C compilers can be made to generate assembly (and the first ones did indeed work this way). And if C is a 'preprocessor', then GNAT (and C-Front) must be PRE-preprocessors! > >Now of course ideally, if the intermediate source code is 100% hidden from >the user, then it is not so important a distinction, however, it can >certainly effect efficiency (there is no efficient way of handling Ada OR >C++ exceptions if you have to generate C source code). Sure there is. You stuff it into a link library and don't generate code for anything but the library call (which, I believe, is exactly the way a number of things are done with C-Front -- which is why it's as incorrect to call it a 'preprocessor' as it is to call any other compiler one). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden --------------------------------------------------------------------------- merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.