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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a32653cf595422e6
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.125.233 with SMTP id mt9mr11393140pbb.5.1335113628435;
        Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni86143pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:53:46 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and register allocation
References: <4f9138c2$0$6628$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <4f9145b5$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <jmrpej$cao$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4f918218$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <87ipgtgkho.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87ipgtgkho.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Message-ID: <4f94379b$0$6639$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2012 18:53:47 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: edaddc4b.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=\m]6:H4eBmhg`45cDR8l?oA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk_2XE;UOVIGonc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmj@`ic87>MZd
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-22T18:53:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21.04.12 17:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Georg Bauhaus:
>
>> I wish there were a pragma that is the opposite of pragma Inline.
>
> This might not do what you'd expect because even without inlining,
> intra-procedural optimizations might still apply.

Still, a pragma controlling inline expansion (not just the enabling
pramga that Ada has) seems a more pragma-tic way of specifying what
I'd like, in the shape of a clearly visible request. (The compiler
may still ignore it).
Controlling inline expansion by playing with sizes of subprograms
seems possible, but a little adventurous.

Currently, I see only one way, writing a forest of
options for translating units of re-structured programs...