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: 103376,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
Date: 1997/04/03
Message-ID: <JSA.97Apr3134856@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230465170
Distribution: world
References: <5hbrah$ctt$1@gail.ripco.com> <JSA.97Mar28134228@alexandria>
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Date: 1997-04-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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