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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: johnherro@aol.com (John Herro) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/10 Message-ID: <4s0b1t$m1o@newsbf02.news.aol.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167573225 sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com references: organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I said: >> Janus/Ada 83 for DOS has a compiler/linker switch >> to tell the system that the whole program will fit into >> a .COM file, so it can generate shorter jumps." dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) replied: > That's surely confused... perhaps you mean... shorter > calls?... True, but not something that is relevant any > more these days. You're right on both counts! They call it "small memory model," and it's not important these days. My point is that perhaps we can use the same *philosophy* for a partial solution to the Gnat subunits problem. The philosophy, which went into pragmas Restrictions and Discard_Names, is that the user can optionally give the compiler information to generate more efficient code. When the user specifies no tasking, couldn't the compiler then handle subunits in the traditional sense and still generate efficient code? Even when there might be tasking, perhaps there could be a compiler option for traditional handling of subunits, in cases where rapid development is more important than code efficiency. I realize that's asking for a lot, especially from a free compiler!!! - John Herro Software Innovations Technology http://members.aol.com/AdaTutor ftp://members.aol.com/AdaTutor