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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b49d3a703a4b4db5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ada novice <posts@gmx.us>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: compiler settings in AdaGIDE
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <43960a8a-334f-4192-8efe-9e8261010789@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <c072b766-9241-4580-9447-4adeb6ed0573@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<e715e179-6053-4190-94d4-6a348f9ea635@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<02d1f899-ad8f-493b-8f64-3791868a1bdb@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
	<i2i3to$asf$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.11.22.91
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1280153631 29679 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2010 14:13:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:13:51 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.11.22.91;
	posting-account=Rr9I-QoAAACS-nOzpA-mGxtAlZ46Nb6I
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8)
	Gecko/20100722 Firefox/3.6.8 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12580
Date: 2010-07-26T07:13:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 25, 9:30 pm, "Jeffrey R. Carter"

<spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:
> On 07/25/2010 06:29 AM, Ada novice wrote:
> > 1. I see that you use -gnatnp. Is this safe to do so i.e. to suppress
> > all checks?

> No, but it is a little faster. You asked about maximizing speed, not about
> safety. Of course, none of this is going to make a significant difference, as
> you found out yourself. Significant speed changes come about from improved
> algorithms. The correct approach is to implement correctly, clearly, and safely,
> then measure against your timing requirements (which are unspecified), and only
> make changes if the result fails to meet the timing requirements.

Thanks. I understand. I would prefer to keep the -gnatn just to be
safe.

YC