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: 103376,7b73eb137e4ed638 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-16 16:14:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!easynet-monga!easynet-melon!easynet.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Compilers Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:30:09 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CE2AF22.2060208@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> <3CE39722.60208@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1021555811 17234 136.170.200.133 (16 May 2002 13:30:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2002 13:30:11 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24236 Date: 2002-05-16T13:30:11+00:00 List-Id: Not entirely fair. It is perfectly fair to ask about the quality of code generation for specific language implementations. Efficiency is a reasonable concern - sometimes a *critical* concern such as when dealing with hard realtime constraints. The best answer is that there are very good, highly optimizing Ada compilers that can produce code every bit as tight as the best C/C++ compilers for similar programs. The caveat is that you can *only* talk about specific compilers and targets - not about the language in general. For example, (as observed elsewhere) the GNAT compiler and the GCC C/C++ compilers share the same back end & generate pretty much identical code for identical programs of different languages. Is GCC a "good" compiler for the x86 PC? Most people think so. Hence, GNAT is going to be just as efficient - sometimes even moreso - than C or C++ going through the GCC compiler. Are there *better* compilers out there than GCC/GNAT? Maybe - for a given platform - and for given algorithms/applications - and some of them will compile Ada while other compile C or C++ or Fortran or who knows what. If efficiency is a critical concern, the only hope is to conduct timing studies comparing different implementations for the problems at hand. If efficiency is just a casual concern, then rest asured that there are implementations of Ada that are Good Enough. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Preben Randhol" wrote in message news:slrnae79li.oe.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:25:22 +0200, David Rasmussen wrote: > > > > I mean how good is the generated machine code on various CPU's (x86 for > > instance) with typical Ada compilers as compared with typical C++ compilers? > > > > Why? The important question is how good is the quality of the software > produced with Ada compared to C++. >