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: 103376,10444cff97404845
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier <Gautier.deMontmollin@Maths.UniNe.CH>
Subject: Re: C like op= proposal
Date: 1999/08/18
Message-ID: <37BA9AFB.257BB730@Maths.UniNe.CH>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514173469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908151023060.10801-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <m3d7wosq6h.fsf@vault84.infomatch.bc.ca>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908152124300.7953-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <37B7D172.DCE02FFA@Maths.UniNe.CH> <87emh2l218.fsf@antinea.enst.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Gautier>   a(b(c,d+e(f,g)).h(i,j)) := a(b(c,d+e(f,g)).h(i,j)) + 1;

> Gautier> which can be horribily long and unlikely to be catched by the
> Gautier> optimizer -> 2x too slow (at least: the extra code makes a
> Gautier> penalty for processor cache).

> Where did you get the impression that the optimizer would miss this?

> [ the proof that GNAT with -O3 (in fact even -O2) does see it and puts
    an "intrinsic" Inc( a(b(c,d+e(f,g)).h(i,j)) ); ]

NB: tested with the generic, inlined Inc procedure the assembler output
is exaclty the same :-)

Subsidiary question: are other optimizers so good (ObjectAda,
Janus,...) ?
[Did I ask the same question 1 year ago ? I'll check in DN...]

-- 
Gautier

--------
http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/