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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ccd04b355056eb04
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)
Subject: Re: performance tuning with gnat
Date: 1996/05/13
Message-ID: <4n79if$qhc@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 154567007
references: <4mvkq1$nr4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <4n069g$rrf@eri1.erinet.com>
organization: IBM Microelectronics Division
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4n069g$rrf@eri1.erinet.com>,
        James E. Hopper <jhopper@erinet.com> writes:
>
>1.  Exceptions are really slow.  By that i mean even having an exception
>handler slows
>    things way down.  we ended up at the end stripping out most of our
>exception handlers

I seem to remember seeing something about exceptions a month or two
back, that takes effect in GNAT 3.03 or 3.04. I think I heard that
the exception handling has been sped up significantly, just about to
the point of no penalty for a non-taken exception. I'd wait for more
authoritative word on this one, though. It still might be worth
checking out.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)