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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Precalculation of parameters (was: Software landmines)
Date: 1998/09/08
Message-ID: <6t4a2e$nbk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 389181819
References: <6t1b6o$ldk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Eyz7Co.J4t.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x3.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 08 22:11:26 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Eyz7Co.J4t.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
  stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:

> By the way, the original point that a "smart" compiler can parallelize:
>
>    Op(Get_A(..), Get_B(..), Get_C(..))
>
> more easily than the "sequential" form involving named constants is a
> bit bogus.  To parallelize, the compiler needs to prove that Get_A,
> Get_B, and Get_C don't interfere with one another.  Given that, there
> is no reason that the "sequential" form couldn't be parallelized as well.

But if the language specifically states that the order of evaluation of
parameters is undefined, then it doesn't have to prove they don't interfere.
It can just assume they shouldn't. I don't know if that's the way Ada is
defined, but I believe that was the claim that was being made.

Is that actually the rule?

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum