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,ac6c4134c47b12b0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Elaboration checks
Date: 2000/02/13
Message-ID: <38A71811.FE942368@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585453537
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
References: <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
 <8873ge$7vk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 950474771 nnrp-10:994 NO-IDENT
 dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

nice plug :-)

i'm not sure that switching compiler vendors this far in will be viewed
with much enthusiasm from the project cost control managers, esp. if we
can do this optimization ourselves...

Robert Dewar wrote:

> In article <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>,
>   Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > about 15% of our executable appear to be made up of
> > elaboration checks (this is the size difference after
> > inserting configuration pragma suppress (elaboration_check)).
>
> Sounds like your compiler is doing absolutely NO optimization
> of elaboration checks at all, which can indeed lead to pretty
> gruesome code. If you used GNAT, then the checking is typically
> done at compile time, and you have static safety plus almost no
> overhead from elaboration checking.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.