Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu !csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 5]

In <1993May28.131626.3612@dbased.nuo.dec.com> brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My nam
e is...) writes:


>In article <1993May27.214741.1967@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
 (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>>>include code-generators, optimizers, and debuggers.  All of DEC's compiled
>>>languages on VAX/VMS use the same debugger.  It is even rumored (because
>>>I haven't had sufficient confirmation) that all of these languages use the
>>>same code-generators and optimizers.
>> 
>>They do (or did -- don't know if they still do, since I haven't messed
>>much with VAXen in a while).  There used to be an optimizer bug on
>>certain types of loop constructs -- and it was broken in Pascal and
>>FORTRAN, both.
>>
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for m
e.

>I have been in the compiler group at DEC for the last ten years.

>VAX Fortran has always had its own code generator.
>VAX Pascal V1.0 had its own.
>VAX Pascal V2.0 and later had its own.

So you're telling me that loop optimization in two independent
compilers was screwed up in the same way?  Or are you addressing
strictly the "code generator" part and not the idea of a common
optimizer? 

[Could have sworn that DEC told us at the time that all their
compilers used the same back ends.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.