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: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter Date: 1997/03/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 229144628 References: <5hbrah$ctt$1@gail.ripco.com> <01bc3a3d$7734db20$63f482c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <5hfble$4d0$1@news.pacifier.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1997-03-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steve says <> Yes, it is not hard to generate completely impossible to read, highly inefficient C that works. <> The benefit of such a back end would be minimal. It would help a little bit for bootstrapping GNAT, but that use would not justify the effort, which would be comparable to doing a new port to a new architecture. I see no respect in which this would be "beneficial to all ports ...". No one ever expressed serious interest in such a project, but if they did, it is certainly something that could be done. Perhaps a person year of effort would be needed to complete such a project in a reasonably productized manner. Remember that gcc is MUCH more flexible than C, so there is no sense in which this would be anything like a direct translation -- for example if you fed in C, out would come unreadable rubbish. The point is that when people ask for Ada to C conversion, they almost always have in mind a translator that would produce human usable output. A processor of the kind you suggest seems basically useless to me!