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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cf34599caf2fa938 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT function calling overhead Date: 1995/04/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100070374 references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr> <3m0psq$fl2@stout.entertain.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >At the most abstract level, it's because GNAT is a failed government >project which was never finished and was mismanaged from the start by a >bunch of flaky educators posing as "capable professionals". Maybe things are different in other government projects, and they all get finished before the expected termination date ?? Anyway, to get things absolutely clear on this. The GNAT project is indeed not finished. The project terminates on June 31st, 1995, and by that time, we will indeed be finished, in the sense of having completed the full implementation of Ada 95, including all the annexes. It's right to be suspicious of anything coming out of academic environments. I am myself one of the most sceptical people when it comes to software coming out of universities. So I understand this concern. The best advice is to pay no attention to what I or CJIII say on this, but instead take a close look at GNAT itself! >At the most detailed level, it's because GNAT emits poorly optimized, and >hence very evil, C code. This can't be based on looking at the alledged "very evil" C code. How do I know this? Because in no sense does GNAT emit C code AT ALL. It is a true compiler, not a translator to C. Both the C and GNAT front ends for GCC emit a common intermediate language (RTL) that is optimized by the backend of GCC. So this remark is nothing but fantasy. >And what makes anyone think that ACT will change anything with regard to >GNAT support, documentation or enhancements. The ACT principals have >already demonstrated that they failed with GNAT, by even starting ACT. >In other words, if GNAT were such a smashing success and quality product, >then there would be no need for ACT. Here I think that Colin James misunderstands what ACT is about. The idea that quality compilers need no support might make some sense in an ideal world, but in practice I know of no major project that would use a compiler for *any* language without having guaranteed support. After all we expect warranties on any products we buy, no matter how excellent. Actually if GNAT is such a dismal failure, *then* there is definitely no need for commercial support. No one is going to use a junk compiler, even if support is available (you do not buy products that are rated as terrible by Consumer Reports just because they have guarantees!) If people sign up for support for GNAT, then it is because they think it meets their needs. By the way, this is a good time to reemphasize that GNAT will continue to be freely available, and continue to be maintained after the official government contract is completed. All improvements and maintenance fixes will continue to be available free via anonymous FTP, on CD-ROM's etc. This is one of the advantages of the free software mode of operation.