Re: Ada and QNX

["David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>]

Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:39EBE584.FC6504CA@home.com...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > perhaps because mere technical superiority is not enough.
<snip>
> > > And by the way, many people say that GCC does not generate
> > > good code for C
> >
> > Well many people say all sorts of unsupported things (you
> > demonstrate this principle in your post)
>
> You could not fail to mention that, could you? Which exactly unsupported
> thing did _I_ say AND claimed it to be anything but matter of my
> personal taste? I do not share the view of those who denounces GCC. I
> said 'some people say' merely to point to simple fact that there are
> such people. Based on that I asked how people can so easily claim GNAT
> to be efficient given that the language places a lot more burden onto
> compiler. I did not say it is impossible for GNAT to be good but I said
> that it probably trades efficiency of code for portability (by which I
> mean ability of compiler to generate code for different
> architectures/OSes).
<snip>
You did say "And by the way, many people say that GCC does not generate
good code for C" in your earlier post, then when defending the statement
you quoted yourself "I said 'some people say' merely to point.."

There's quite a difference between "many" and "some."  That "some" say
it I have no doubt, but that "many" say it, I don't believe can be
supported.

By the way, the gcc compilers basically have a common front end for
each language producing a common intermediate language, and then
a back end specific to the architecture/OS.  Thus, a single compiler
does _not_ "generate code for different architectures/OSes," so there's
no need to "trade efficiency of code for portability" as you suggest.