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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-26 16:03:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!gestalt.direcpc.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com> <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com> <3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com> Subject: Re: naval systems X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.180.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1014768169 ST000 208.191.180.40 (Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:02:49 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:02:49 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: FKPGWWCEJKVOBTT^]BCB^]\@PJ_^PBQLGPQRZUEK@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:02:49 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20483 Date: 2002-02-27T00:02:49+00:00 List-Id: "Ray Blaak" wrote in message news:uzo1vx3w2.fsf@telus.net... > "Pat Rogers" writes: > > "Ray Blaak" 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.