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: a07f3367d7,8147e9052e4bc0df
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Child vs nested package : efficiency matter
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <1b5a8557-d5bc-425e-b280-57ef97d27604@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.vdgww3flxmjfy8@garhos>
 <37b699c4-da76-4b5f-9074-0aa465af4a19@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vdmn7kl4ule2fv@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1275406735 27101 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2010 15:38:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
	SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
	3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12174
Date: 2010-06-01T08:38:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 1, 8:34=A0am, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:03:44 +0200, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> a =
=A0
> =E9crit:> I can't say anything about any particular compiler. =A0One poss=
ibility:
> > if procedure A calls procedure B, and A and B are in the same source,
> > a compiler may be able to put the code of B inline in procedure A's
> > code---i.e. the code for A will include B's code, rather than
> > including a "call" instruction. =A0If it does this, then in the process=
,
> > it may also to be able to eliminate instructions in B's code that have
> > no effect on A. =A0It's a lot harder to do this if A and B are in
> > different sources, which I'm assuming is happening if you are pulling
> > code out of a nested package and putting it in a child package.
>
> Adam, I've thought about it at that moment, so I've added some pragma =A0
> Inline for the relevant subprograms in the packages specs. This did not =
=A0
> change anything.
>
> Do you think there are some reasons to believe pragma Inline is not =A0
> properly applied with inter-package subprograms invocations ?

I can't say.  Different compilers will handle this differently.  The
language standard says that Inline pragmas don't have to be obeyed---
they are just suggestions.

The only real way to tell what's going on is to disassemble the code.

                                -- Adam