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: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 435278201 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Andi Kleen (ak-uu@muc.de) wrote: : In article , : stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes: : > This variant of our Ada 95 front end compiles into optimized ANSI C, : > that is actually designed to be human readable as well, to simplify : > manual debugging (it generates #line directives so that a "C" debugger : > will display and step through the Ada source rather than the C intermediate). : ... : To nit pick - if it generates external identifiers that are not unique : within 6 case-insensitive characters then the generated code is not : ANSI C compliant. : Not that that I would see that as a serious limitation in practice, : but perhaps you should be more careful with phrases like ``any "validated" : ANSI compiler could handle it''. I probably should have put a "smiley" after the word "validated." I quoted it to indicate that the whole notion of "validated" is somewhat foreign to the C compiler world, though I am aware of test suites like Plum Hall. Perhaps what I meant was any "decent" ANSI C compiler (Oxymoron? ;-). : This applies to the output of most C++-to-C compilers too, BTW. : -Andi -- -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools) AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA