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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3a414836333dfef7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-07 16:00:50 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Elaboration in GNAT
Date: 7 Jan 2002 16:00:49 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0201071600.475f4618@posting.google.com>
References: <1006952193.650930@edh3>
 <5ee5b646.0111281125.7e9fbca3@posting.google.com> <1010151875.216658@edh3>
 <u3bh1tiuppk9c7@corp.supernews.com>
 <5ee5b646.0201041650.208d0918@posting.google.com>
 <3C39D954.58672C0A@Raytheon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1010448049 26866 127.0.0.1 (8 Jan 2002 00:00:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jan 2002 00:00:49 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18630
Date: 2002-01-08T00:00:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mark Johnson <Mark_H_Johnson@Raytheon.com> wrote in message news:<3C39D954.58672C0A@Raytheon.com>...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > Some things to remember here:
> > 
> > 1. The static elaboration model of GNAT is primarily intended for the development of new code.

> Hmm. I guess I disagree with that statement. See reasons 
> below.

You can't really disagree with the designer of a feature
telling you its primary design intention :-) Of course it
is just fine if it can be used for legacy code, and it is
always good to hear of such successes.

> > 3. If you are working with legacy code, it often makes 
> > no sense to try to use the static model of GNAT

Often /= never! My point, which I guess was confusing was
that it often does not make sense to put in a huge amount
of work to restructure code to meet the static model
 
> Yes and no. Two examples follow.

i.e. you are agreeing, sometimes yes, and sometimes no, 
which is exactly what I was saying

> As Robert's message goes on to say - complicated
> elaboration code is likely filled with bugs anyway. =

That's misreading my message, the bugs I was talking about
are failure to have all the pragma Elaborate's in place, 
but that is very specific.

The paradigm that causes most trouble with the static model
is:

    with X;
    package Y is
       ...
       Q : integer := X.Func;
       ...

where X is a giant package with a large number of with's,
but you happen to know that Func is a little function
that does not use any of these with's. So it is in fact
safe to use pragma Elaborate, instead of pragma Elaborate_All and
everything will work.

The coding philosophy of the static model of GNAT rejects
this coding style on the grounds that it is improper for
a client of X to know anything about the implementation
of the body of X (and any of its subprogram). Yes, that's
a legitimate coding philosophy, but that does not mean that
any code that does not follow this philosophy is buggy :-)

That being said, any program which does a lot of computation at
elaboration time is worrisome. That's
especially so if you have library tasks, which can
start up before elaboration is complete :-( (see special
section on elaboration and tasking in the GNAT docs).

Robert Dewar