Re: Commercial C To Ada 95 compiler

["SteveD" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>]

"Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:3D0116F3.7254E263@despammed.com...
>
[snip]
> A direct translation to Ada will reveal
> some bugs at compile time.  And the developers
> are looking at a language they can read
> when they fix those bugs.

I disagree.  A direct translation to Ada should not reveal any bugs at
compile time.  In fact it should replicate memory leaks and errant pointers.
If it doesn't do so, it is not a direct translation.

If C coding errors are translated directly to Ada, the error should be
reproduced.  However looking at the code that is generated, the error in the
source may be obvious if reviewed by a human reader.

For example, the C code:

  for( i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ );
  {
    printf( "%d\n", i );
  }

Should be directly translated to:

  i : Integer;

  i := 0;
  while i < 10 loop
    i := i + 1;
  end loop;
  Ada.Integer.Text_Io.Put( i );
  Ada.Text_Io.New_Line;

bug and all.  To do anything else would not be a direct translation.

Once the code has been translated these sort of problems are easy to spot
with code walk-thrus.  A translator also may be set up do report potential
problem areas.

In my experince with Pascal to Ada translation, no bugs showed up as a
result of direct translation.  Bugs only showed up because of incomplete
translation and in cases where I refined the code by hand to permit the
compiler to make more checks.

SteveD

> Other bugs will appear as the developers
> improve things in the process of working
> on the code.
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
> http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau