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: 103376,7f1e0b399cd01cb0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: Unreferenced lock variables
Date: 1999/04/20
Message-ID: <3718268c.48395643@news.pacbell.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 468528022
References: <x7v4smnszvu.fsf@pogner.moho> <7ero31$n46$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <x7vk8viqsla.fsf@pogner.moho> <7esrmv$k1n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <3713b417.22324981@news.pacbell.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net
X-Trace: typhoon-sf.pbi.net 924569203 206.170.2.195 (Mon,
 19 Apr 1999 17:46:43 PDT)
Organization: SBC Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:46:43 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>With regard to initialization and finalization, the ARG
>>just agreed (unwisely if you ask me!) to allow a compiler
>>to optimize away initialization and finalization for an
>>otherwise unreferenced variable.
>It seems such a bad idea - what arguments led them to this decision?
Randy Brukardt was kind enough to educate me on some of the points
here, including
procedure Something(P : in integer) is
  Unused : integer := P/0;
begin ...
which can legally have Unused eliminated and thus the divide by zero
eliminated.  That certainly provides an analogous precedent for
eliminating the controlled Initialize/Finalize.  So with 'limited'
still available when you really gotta have Initialize/Finalize, I
guess it's not so unreasonable to eliminate the controlled object (in
the non-limited) case after all.