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: Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>
Subject: Re: Elaboration checks
Date: 2000/02/14
Message-ID: <38A85CC1.8E5DF76@averstar.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585865091
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com
X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 950557889 19713 141.199.8.164 (14 Feb 2000
 19:51:29 GMT)
Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)  Burlington, MA  USA
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2000 19:51:29 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-14T19:51:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Dowie 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)).

You should definitely talk with Rational about this.
If you are placing the suppress pragmas properly, then there
should be no overhead for elaboration checking.
Because the suppress pragmas have relatively "loose" semantics,
some compilers handle them better in certain contexts than in others.
I suspect the engineers at Rational know where to put the
pragma to make sure that all elaboration checks are removed...

For example, it may be essential that the suppress pragma is on
the spec rather than the body, or perhaps on both.  Rational should know.

> this is pushing us over our 50% memory usage requirement. our plan is
> now to have 2 builds - one with elaboration checks the other without
> (which would become our deliverable). is it true to say that if no
> elaboration checks fail in the 'full' build, that our 'small' build is
> also safe?
> 
> we plan to ensure that each of our packages provides an 'Initialise'
> routine to assign package-local initial values. all our tasks currently
> block on an 'accept Initialise' already.
> 
> anything else we can do?
> 
> environment is Rational Apex 3.0.0b (3.2 being evaluated as i type)
> targeting PowerPC. Rational have also informed us that we *can not*
> switch on any level of optimization as "it won't work"(!).

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA