Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

7In article <dewar.860070899@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Jon said
> 
> <<So, were these tricks still captured in generated C or were they
> something else?  If they were still captured in the generated C, then
> it would seem that the use of the term "fundamentally" here is not
> quite accurate.  I mean, the ICC work would be an existence proof to
> the contrary.>>
> 
> 
> No -- read carefully! The ICC work shows you can translate Ada into low
> level C, and capture 100% of the semantics. This is known, and no one
> ever contested it. My statement was that such a translation has
> fundamental efficiency problems. The ICC does not contradict this,
> rather it demonstrates an instance of these problems. 

Robert, you should read a little more carefully.  Please.  The comment
above is in response to one of Bob's about how the ICC implementation
_avoided_ inefficiency here.  Now, I don't know for a fact that Bob's
comment is accurate (that the ICC implementation was _not_ inefficent
here), but I assumed it was when I asked this question.  So, the
proper response here should be either:

a) "No, the ICC implementation was actually inefficient here and the
tricks used did _not_ prevent this problem."

or

b) Address the actual question asked.


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com