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-Thread: 103376,a32653cf595422e6
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr1256720pbc.0.1335270033023;
        Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni92998pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and register allocation
References: <4f9138c2$0$6628$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 	<4f9145b5$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 	<jmrpej$cao$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 	<4f918218$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 	<82r4vhi8v4.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 	<4f94352f$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:21:16 -0400
Message-ID: <82pqaxgw1v.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dTAigHLoltVK+a91bqZ3OvX7gwk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: cd9214f969a90e029e66114780
X-Received-Bytes: 3155
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2012-04-24T08:21:16-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On 21.04.12 14:10, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>>> I must use one set of options for an entire program in this case.
>>
>> Why?
>
> This requirement is likely a fact (external) that we can't change.
> We may try one day.

Sounds like a bad rule; do they tell you to use C? or to use -O3 instead
of -O2? This is a decision that should be left to the people running the
Makefiles!

>> gpr files give you a way to apply different compilation options to
>> different files. There are _lots_ of low-level gcc options controlling
>> inline and other optimizations; see gnat user guide, section 3.10.
>
> Controlling inline expansion with GCC's -f[no]-inline[-*] can
> require that the entire program be reorganized. Consider a call chain:
>
> A
> -> B
> --> C
> ---> D
>
> I want to specify that D be expanded inline into C,
> but also want to prevent C from being expanded into B.
> That is, B should actually call C. Right now, the bodies
> of B, C, and D are neighbors in the same scope.
>
> In this case, a possible solution seems to be to arrange
> for separate compilation units. 

Yes.

> Specify -fno-inline-functions for the translation of B, and enable
> inline expansion for C and D. Is this correct? OR will the "outer"
> inline prevention override the "inner"?

I don't know; the manual isn't very clear. A little experimentation
would tell.

> I'm also no sure yet whether or not this arrangement will be possible
> using Ada's feature for separate compilation ("separate" keyword),
> or whether I would have to make a child package containing C and D.
> (IIRC, GNAT uses slightly different rules for subprograms declared
> separate in other subprograms than for subprograms declared separate
> in (non-generic?) packages.)

Right.

> If this procedure adequately describes how to achieve inline control,
> then I will find a compiler pragma a little easier.

I guess you mean 'a pragma I can include in the current source files,
that applies to specific subprograms'.

Yes, that would be simpler. The command line options have the advantage
of being available now :).

-- 
-- Stephe