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: 1997/04/07
Message-ID: <JSA.97Apr7164344@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231380507
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: 1997-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.860206887@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Jon says
> 
> <<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.>>

> 
> If Bob DID mean to imply that ICC avoided all efficiency penalties
> in handling overflows in C generated code, that's just plain wrong!

No universal quantifiers are written in this nor are any presumed and
I doubt any were intended (this is absolutely true for my part).  I'm
not sure why you bring them in - they're irrelevant and confusing.


> So, let's not obscure the semantics here.

Indeed.


> The bottom line here is that there is a significant efficiency
> penalty in generating C, and it cannot be eliminated, no matter how
> clever you are!

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise and haven't been for some
time now...


/Jon

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