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,ac06cbb94859faf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada Timing Analysis
Date: 1996/07/22
Message-ID: <dewar.838070318@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169617184
references: <4t0iej$2c9@explorer.csc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob asked

"My question is, does any one have a reasonable number for the ratio of Ada
source to machine language statements??"

There is no such reasonable number. The reason is that it varies 
tremendously depending on the style of use of the language. If your code
is full of aggregates, protected objects, slices etc, the number will
be FAR higher than if you tend to use a relatively straightforward
subset of Ada.

One useful tool in getting a feel for this when using GNAT is to use the
-gnatdg switch to generate the intermediate Ada source code after
expansion, which is much less subject to this kind of variation, since
it is basically at the WYSIWYG level.