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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ef33c33c4f98bde1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Compiler for Z80/6510
Date: 1999/11/26
Message-ID: <s3rhigaqa4r69@corp.supernews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 553106080
References: <slrn83nahf.m1.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <383c6fed.458467@news.fiam.net> <slrn83ptfb.kn.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <81k67s$47l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote in message <81k67s$47l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <slrn83ptfb.kn.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>,
>  lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) wrote:
>> The common experience is, that high level languages result in
>> slow and bloated code. But this must not be true. There is no
>> reason for such compilers despite laziness of developers (it's
>> an expensive development).


[..]

>Certainly if you write Ada carefully using GNAT, you will get
>perfectly efficient code ...

I'd like to confirm  that if GNAT is used carefully then in many cases
one could obtain  up to (90-95)% efficiency compared with what
one could squeeze out using assembler.
If not carefully  than result could be  (20-40)% for both GNAT
and OA.
Not recently I  did a small investigation regarding this issue.

There are of course some special cases when using assembler
one can easily outperform GNAT in up to 8 times on  the IA32 platform
but I think that next GNAT releases will leave no such opportunities.
I think it is quite obvious what these cases are :-).

Regards,
Vladimir Olensky