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-Thread: a07f3367d7,6327f05d4989a68d X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.181.13.205 with SMTP id fa13mr9908777wid.3.1356837413503; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:16:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: i11ni337233wiw.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.139.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed10.multikabel.net!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!news.mixmin.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: compilers, was Re: Press Release - Ada 2012 Language Standard Approved by ISO Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:00:06 -0600 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1356645617 27641 69.95.181.76 (27 Dec 2012 22:00:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:00:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-12-27T16:00:06-06:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:kbia4b$srn$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> I realize that the quality of proof needed to make this work might be >> beyond the state-of-the-art today, but I doubt that will be the case by >> the time a new version of Ada is defined. > I thought compilers were getting wider - handling more constructs - > rather than deeper - more analysis and optimization. Is that not the > case? A compiler-writer that isn't making their code better is just going through the motions, IMHO. Optimization/code generation is the fun/rewarding part of compiler construction -- the rest of it is the busy work needed to support the fun. As such, I can't quite imagine a developer that takes pride in their work not trying to make that better. And of course, the best way to generate faster checks is to prove that they're not needed at all. The fastest check is always the one you don't make! So more proof directly aids that primary goal of compiler writers. (For Ada, of course, it also offers the possibility of detecting more errors early.) Randy.