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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,def01441310021b3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-03 14:14:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Will (abstract) Ada code improve over time ? Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:32:13 +0200 Organization: Enyo's not your organization Message-ID: <873d787rtu.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <3B557455.B3ADFEE@ffi.no> <9kenii$ivo$1@news.btv.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11265 Date: 2001-08-03T23:32:13+02:00 List-Id: pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius) writes: > The real issue here is about WHO is trying to make better optimizers? > At present, most real-world compilers are C/C++, which don't furnish > the extra information Ada does. Not too recently, one C compiler has introduced optimizations involving type-based aliasing analysis, an area where Ada can do much, much better because writing to strings does not potentially change any other object in the same scope. There are other features of Ada which can result in compiler backend input which is easier to optimize, for example, the true 'for' loop statement.