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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0e1d3b3f7c994b8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Robert Dewar's great article about the Strengths of Ada over
	other langauges in multiprocessing!
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <02f7cc69-043f-4366-8510-abcba258978c@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
References: <13t4b2kkjem20f3@corp.supernews.com>
 <89af8399-94fb-42b3-909d-edf3c98d32e5@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
	<47D39DC8.20002@obry.net>
 <f56d577b-e396-44fc-9b0a-25dcb2311ad2@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
	<114f711c-9cf8-4fdb-8f11-77667afb8719@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<bd08d3a6-fbc8-4b17-af35-73831c40058c@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
	<b64bea7a-d7b3-4079-b46d-0272f97a90f9@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<f1537312-2084-4b4f-ac29-1f36261f45f8@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
	<c35feae6-724e-43c3-9871-5462f2844542@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
	<33557da4-e4ba-4c75-9a55-4b7eb5fdad3b@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<87iqzr26vc.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.182.223
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205397686 32025 127.0.0.1 (13 Mar 2008 08:41:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:41:26 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.182.223;
	posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12)
	Gecko/20080211 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-0.10.el4 Firefox/1.5.0.12
 pango-text,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20334
Date: 2008-03-13T01:41:26-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12 Mar, 18:24, Samuel Tardieu <s...@rfc1149.net> wrote:

> Maciej> In the most extreme case (global linker optimization), all
> Maciej> calls can be resolved statically.
>
> Not even. Consider a base class B with two child classes D1 and
> D2 with their own virtual destructors. Pseudo-code:
>
>   B* o;
>   if (user_provided_integer_from_keyboard() == 0)
>     B = new D1;
>   else
>     B = new D2;
>   do_something_with (B);
>   delete B;
>
> You cannot resolve "delete" statically

Of course I can.
Note that the above is equivalent to:

B* o;
if (user_provided_integer_from_keyboard() == 0)
{
  B = new D1;
  do_something_with (B);
  delete B;
}
else
{
  B = new D2;
  do_something_with (B);
  delete B;
}

There is no further obstacle in resolving the call statically.

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com