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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.42.141 with SMTP id s13mr10849136qae.3.1371518473229;
        Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.62.3 with SMTP id u3mr421318qer.26.1371518473213; Mon, 17
 Jun 2013 18:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.bbs-scene.org!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!bw2no2043887qab.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni3349qax.0!nntp.google.com!j2no560114qak.0!postnews.google.com!v17g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v17g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=105.236.184.29;
 posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H
NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.236.184.29
References: 
 <7f33982d-3bcf-452e-a3b3-3a0a28505ff1@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <87r4g0g9c0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <wcchagwhebl.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <049bb1b4-4a9f-4238-8d60-c990f1a1d392@u9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
 <kpnue3$s08$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_4)
 AppleWebKit/536.30.1 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/6.0.5 Safari/536.30.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: 
 <35b14a90-0f39-4b90-87b4-be0432af71ca@v17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in 'gnatmake' (Was: Range check for type 'Integer')
From: Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:21:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15799
Date: 2013-06-17T18:21:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 17, 11:22=A0pm, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 12:15 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
> =A0>
> =A0> Leaving on range, and other, checking must slow things down a tad, b=
ut
> =A0> turning the optimiser on must speed them up. It'll only really matte=
r
> =A0> in CPU intensive stuff, but do you have any idea what the effects ar=
e?
> =A0> More or less.
>
> IMO, leaving on checks speeds things up a bit, if you're interested in co=
rrect
> code; code without buffer-overflow and integer-overflow vulnerabilities a=
nd the
> like. An Ada compiler can optimize away many index checks, for example, w=
hich
> doesn't happen to checks manually inserted in a language without automati=
c
> checks. So it should be the case that correct code in Ada is faster than
> equivalent code in a language without automatic checks.
>
> Of course, if correctness isn't an issue, then things might work otherwis=
e. But
> if correctness isn't an issue, the null program should be an acceptable s=
olution
> to any problem, and that should be just as fast in Ada as in any other la=
nguage.
>
> =A0> I know I could just take my code and try it, but it'd be interesting
> =A0> to have a bigger picture of the performance question.
>
> There's always the Ada (83) beats assembler paper:
>
> http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~adagroup/sigada-website/lawlis.html
>
Thank you for that - I'd not read it. It makes the point very well!