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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: Zoo question
Date: 1996/08/19
Message-ID: <32185D2A.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 175088424
references: <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com> <4v1m7n$8du@zeus.orl.mmc.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-08-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Gilbert wrote:
> 
> In article <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
> > Bob Gilbert wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, so depending on the particular (Ada 83) compiler, the code may or
> > > may not produce the desired result, depending on whether the constraint
> > > check is performed within the begin block or not.
> >
> > Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to not generate a range
> > check when assigning a value of 6 to an object declared with range 1 .. 5?
> 
> Geez... did I actually type that?  I guess the only acceptable way to not
> generate the range check would be to compile with the checking turned off.

...or the check could be placed around the next USE of the value. This could
well be a useful optmization in some circumstances.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |