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: 103376,634259facc42df7a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Conditional compilation of debug traces without cpp
Date: 5 Jul 2006 22:53:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1152165198.400494.175100@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <44aaae35$0$5389$626a54ce@news.free.fr>
   <mbdg8e.ddb.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <44ac1562$0$10269$636a55ce@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.41.216.139
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1152165203 30893 127.0.0.1 (6 Jul 2006 05:53:23
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 05:53:23 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <44ac1562$0$10269$636a55ce@news.free.fr>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de;
 rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 fproxy.post.ch:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE10)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.41.216.139;
   posting-account=2-0LkQwAAAAQMhPSoYwlMiUmi-6lYh44
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5527
Date: 2006-07-05T22:53:18-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


guillaume.portail@grospied.enanglais.com wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
>
> > Switching packages is then not more difficult than changing a #define...
>
> Nice, thank you ! And thank you for your Debug package, I already know
> about it.
>
> But don't you think that the elaboration of the calls will still exist ?
> Executing the statement :
>
> 	Null_Proc ("I was here" & Function_Call(A+12));
>
> will always produce a call to Function_Call, even if Null_Proc has a
> null body, I guess.
> I have zillion of 'complicated' traces like this :
>
> 	Traces.Put_Info ("Mouse at home, ears=" & (+Mice.ears)
>                                        & "tong=" & (+Mice.tong)
>                                        ...
>                                        & "legs=" & (+Mice.legs));
>
> where "+" is a rename of some kind of 'Image, may be a sophisticated
> one. In general returning fixed-length strings, but not always. So I
> suspect that theses traces call every "+" involved in the elaboration of
> the call, maybe doing heap allocation, even when Trace.Put_info is null.

Indeed. For simple cases "-O3" and "pragma Inline" will help. For GNAT
you can take it furher with pragma "Pure_Function" but you are right:
eventually you reach the point where functions will be called even when
the result is not needed.

You could use "GNAT PREPROCESS" - which gives you the same solution as
C/C++: a text preprocessor. With all the advantages and disadvantages.
Well not quite: "GNAT PREPROCESS" writes the preprocessed file to the
drive - which has it's own set advantages and disadvantages.

Martin