Re: naval systems

[Ray Blaak <blaak@telus.net>]

"Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com> writes:
> "Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message news:u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net...
> > If one means gcc to mean the suite of language specific compilers using a
> > common code generation backend, then GNAT is a part of gcc.
> 
> Of course that is what I mean.  Therefore, the stand-alone assertion that
> "GNAT is noticably slower than gcc" is confusing.  Does he mean that the
> front-end for GNAT is slower than the front-end for C? Does he mean that the
> end-to-end performance of any Ada compiler is slower than any C compiler, as
> supported by a comparison of supplying C code and Ada code to gcc?  Did this
> Ada code and C code do the same thing?  What switches did he use for both?

Hmm. I am not sure what was meant by the other poster, but my observation is
that an Ada compiler would be inherently slower, almost by definition, since
it does fundamentally more work than a C compiler. Even given similar source
inputs and compiler settings, there will be more verification happening for
the Ada source, and that extra work has a time cost.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
blaak@telus.net                                The Rhythm has my soul.