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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e93f73587e2bc1c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:23:03 -0400
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.
References: <4c4e2d69$0$2378$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <i2ne8j$1i7g$1@news.ett.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <i2ne8j$1i7g$1@news.ett.com.ua>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4c4f5c28$0$2375$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 50291879.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=m9Y\RWXb;GBXlC9O1Z7SIBK6_LM2JZB_C7AN`KiBGR^C:WUUlR<856O:0[J3OgibECBTLicR4SE`C
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12618
Date: 2010-07-27T18:23:03-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2010-07-27 16:06, anon@att.net wrote:

> Now as for GNAT it uses the optimization based on the GCC back end 
> ( -OX   where X in 0 .. 4 ). GNAT still preforms a syntactical check of the 
> Optimize pragma statement, then treat's the statement as a comment like a 
> number of other built-in Ada pragma statement.  Which allows GNAT to 
> replicate code and let the GCC handle rather its switches to shared or not. 
> And at this time GCC does not understand the Ada's concept replication 
> versus the sharing code for optimization.

Thanks for all the replies to my question. I want to emphasize that my
interest is not so much in what is done by current compilers but rather
what is allowed by the standard. Is the standard (even the latest
standard) written in such a way as to make a shared implementation of
generic bodies possible? It sounds like the answer is yes.

In contrast I have the impression that in C++ it is not really possible,
or at least not feasible, for a compiler to share template bodies across
instantiations. That is, the nature of C++ essentially requires a
replication strategy. To be honest I'm not sure why I think this and I
might be wrong. This isn't a C++ group so it's probably not appropriate
to explore C++'s issues in too much detail here, but I will say that
haven't heard any serious talk in the C++ community about
implementations sharing template bodies.

Peter