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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd797aa3bdcb07b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: performance of Generic and strings
Date: 1999/08/11
Message-ID: <7osacq$gfi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 511490925
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95.990811150219.5487B-100000@bilbo.mdh.se>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 11 17:03:31 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-08-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> Is there anyone who can tell me exactly what it is that makes
> generic procedures so slow compared to non-generic procedures?

No, there is no one who can tell you this, because it simply
is not true. In most implementations of Ada, generics are done
by inline expansion, so there is absolutely NO time efficiency
penalty for making a procedure generic, none at all!

So you are really asking another question entirely, which is
something like

why is generic procedure BLA slower than non-generic procedure
JUNK.

We need to know BLA and JUNK to answer this :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.