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 12:47:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.stealth.net!newscon02.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 1014756405 ST000 208.191.180.40 (Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:46:45 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:46:45 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MONFJVMQVPXJZDBNFXBBZ\LPCXLLBWLOOAFEQR@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:46:45 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20474 Date: 2002-02-26T20:46:45+00:00 List-Id: "Ray Blaak" wrote in message news:u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net... > "Pat Rogers" writes: > > "David Starner" wrote in message > > news:a5ghiq$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu... > > > But GNAT is noticably slower than gcc, and you can't claim that Ada > > > compilers are as fast as C compilers, and then argue that it doesn't > > > matter when someone pushes the point. Be honest; point out that Ada > > > compilers are fast enough, instead. > > > > I don't understand this. GNAT *is* gcc. > > Well no. The machinery that reads in Ada sources and performs the static > analysis is (often) included in the gcc suite and invokes the common gcc code > generation abilities. > > It is not gcc itself, it is GNAT. > > 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? One can just as easily assert that -- with comparable (not identical) switches and with the code doing the same thing -- most of the time there won't be a significant difference in either compile-time or run-time. Pathological cases in either direction can no doubt be constructed. So what? > If one means gcc to mean the C/C++ compiler only, then of course it is not the > same -- they compile different languages. Clearly. However, that is an obsolete definition, given that GCC is now the "GNU Compiler Collection".