Re: naval systems

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message news:uzo1vx3w2.fsf@telus.net...
> "Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com> writes:
> > "Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net...
> > > If one means gcc to mean the suite of language specific compilers using a
> > > common code generation backend, then GNAT is a part of gcc.
> >
> > Of course that is what I mean.  Therefore, the stand-alone assertion that
> > "GNAT is noticably slower than gcc" is confusing.  Does he mean that the
> > front-end for GNAT is slower than the front-end for C? Does he mean that the
> > end-to-end performance of any Ada compiler is slower than any C compiler, as
> > supported by a comparison of supplying C code and Ada code to gcc?  Did this
> > Ada code and C code do the same thing?  What switches did he use for both?
>
> Hmm. I am not sure what was meant by the other poster, but my observation is
> that an Ada compiler would be inherently slower, almost by definition, since
> it does fundamentally more work than a C compiler. Even given similar source
> inputs and compiler settings, there will be more verification happening for
> the Ada source, and that extra work has a time cost.

Then let's look at it this way -- the OP asserted that all Ada compiler are
slower than all C compilers, on the evidence garnered from submitting "similar"
programs to a single compiler.  I'm saying that isn't enough.