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: 103376,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fca1b,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gidfca1b,public From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." Subject: Re: Ada and QNX Date: 2000/10/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 682415261 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8r1i82$ri3$1@kujawiak.man.lodz.pl> <8r5pe5$h70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8FCDFD7EEnopenopena@63.209.170.206> <39EA6305.CD5CFE1F@ix.netcom.com> <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com> <39EB1BA2.B5F2BFDF@acm.org> <39EB283A.9F7B4F76@motorola.com> <8sff6h$q6c$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39EBE584.FC6504CA@home.com> X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net X-Trace: NDAgTm9BdXRoVXNlciBURUxPQ0lUWS1SRUFERVJTIDIxNi4yMjcuNDcuNDkgIFR1ZSwgMTcgT2N0!IDIwMDAgMDM6NDQ6qzcgUERU X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:44:37 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.qnx Date: 2000-10-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Igor Kovalenko wrote in message news:39EBE584.FC6504CA@home.com... > Robert Dewar wrote: > > perhaps because mere technical superiority is not enough. > > > 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). 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.