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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:55:12 -0500
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
Message-ID: <39elttF5dqfj1U1@individual.net>
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
 <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
 <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02>
 <hwciddo3rp1S@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <e39403d5.0503100359.5c975706@posting.google.com>
 <1lr611thktbau$.1dj95z21h7l5v.dlg@40tude.net>
 <e39403d5.0503110005.6586fa3f@posting.google.com>
 <97kpu5gkgo1r$.kc4nx7cxjziw$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: groleau+news@freeshell.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 78Xb1mP6wh8zUgLdFw2gpgfVUoKiAh/k/QjdxoOsMmv3ORVOwo
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <97kpu5gkgo1r$.kc4nx7cxjziw$.dlg@40tude.net>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9187 comp.lang.c++:45231
 comp.realtime:1322 comp.software-eng:4890
Date: 2005-03-11T17:55:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> No, the difference is that the compiler *statically* knows that both I and
> J will be in the bounds at run-time. There is no way (except for dirty
> tricks with casting) how they might become out of the bounds. Therefore the
> compiler can safely omit any checks.

Actually, the compiler will not allow any casting into
loop control variables.  And if they were not loop control
variables, the compiler will add checks anywhere that can
be reached from code that has done such a conversion.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."