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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4039d4e40ecde64c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Ada to C translator
Date: 1997/02/16
Message-ID: <5e7rd2$ve6$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 219231103
References: <dewar.855063471@merv> <5d7h2e$q4l$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <5d90qq$ka7@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5d90qq$ka7@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
>>That's true, but it's not a hard optimization to only handle variables
>>that are actually *used* in the inner subprogram in a special way (or to
>>special-case a one-element structure).  If a variable is used in an
>>inner subprogram, it probably has to be in memory anyway.
>
>If it's so easy, how come gcc doesn't do it?   ;-)

It does.  The only variables in an outer function that are forced into
memory due to the presence of inner functions are those that are actually
referenced in the inner functions.