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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: gary.l.scott@lmco.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: 26 May 2006 11:41:50 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1148668910.867823.99110@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
   <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
   <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
   <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
   <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
   <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
   <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
   <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net>
   <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
   <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu>
   <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <3cBdg.6255$oa3.2407@trnddc08>
   <SuEdg.167361$eR6.86840@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <1148655583.421963.226740@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <rTEdg.167474$eR6.62378@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.31.106.35
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1148668916 32210 127.0.0.1 (26 May 2006 18:41:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:41:56 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <rTEdg.167474$eR6.62378@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.31.106.35;
   posting-account=C6x9RAwAAAD1MnUFUMY-M1LaucT0OnHg
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4505 comp.lang.fortran:10304
Date: 2006-05-26T11:41:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I was just thinking that if the loop counter was in fact declared to be
volatile, that the declaration of such should cause the compiler to
diagnose it as an incompatible loop index variable (i.e. F2k8+).