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: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter Date: 1997/04/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 230772803 Distribution: world References: <5hbrah$ctt$1@gail.ripco.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1997-04-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon said > > < 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:>> > > Nope, that's not what Bob said, he said that ICC used some implementation > dependent tricks -- that's true! Not that they avoided inefficiencies. > Reread Bob's post, you will see that you invented the word avoid (you > just read that into it, but it is not what he said!!) >From DejaNews: -------------- Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Date: 1997/04/01 Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c [More Headers] In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >Hmmm, _fundamentally_ inefficient? I'm not confinced. Of course, it >definitely will be completely unreadable. Robert is probably alluding to the fact that C doesn't catch overflows. Of course, one could imagine a translator that assumed the Ada program isn't bothered by overflows... >Well, wasn't it ICC that marketed such a thing for real work? I'm not >sure they'd agree with you. In fact, I recall yourself claiming that >there was nothing "fundamentally" wrong with the approach. I believe ICC used various implementation-dependent tricks to catch overflows efficiently. And they didn't claim to produce readable C -- ********************* *********** just correct C. ------------------------- Emphasis mine. I read "to catch overflows efficiently" as being interchangeable with "to avoid inefficiencies in catching overflows". I think Bob has already agreed with this, but that he meant to also say he didn't really know for sure if it worked. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com