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: 103376,7b73eb137e4ed638
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-15 18:07:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!cert.uni-stuttgart.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Compilers
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 03:07:36 +0200
Organization: Enyo -- not your organization
Message-ID: <878z6kq4rr.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <3CE2AF22.2060208@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.enyo.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: cygnus.enyo.de 1021511256 23094 212.9.189.171 (16 May 2002 01:07:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@enyo.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2002 01:07:36 GMT
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nhvAvvkgcJ7efNs/SEiJgaGVDrY=
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24139
Date: 2002-05-16T01:07:36+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Rasmussen <david.rasmussen@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> writes:

> More importantly, what do the free compilers lack in contrast to the
> commercial ones?

GNAT lacks unimplemented annexes in contrast to proprietary compilers?
(GNAT is a commercial compiler, too, so you probably mean something 
else.)

> Also, how portable is typical Ada, and how good is code generation
> compared to C++ on the same platform (typically)?

That's easy in the case of GNAT: identical for equivalent programs.
Both GNU compilers share the same code generator.