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,d17561d7e5eba62c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Jeff Creem" <jcreem@atetola.mv.com>
Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1999/12/16
Message-ID: <83c7m2$f0q$1@pyrite.mv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 561784791
References: <OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca>
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mv.com
X-Trace: pyrite.mv.net 945398274 15386 199.125.99.138 (17 Dec 1999 02:37:54
 GMT)
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Dec 1999 02:37:54 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-17T02:37:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<Tom_Hargraves@Raytheon.com> wrote in message
news:OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca...
> Related to "Questions about Unchecked_Conversion".
>
> There have been some good responses to the related topic. I agree with the
> sentiment that Unchecked_Conversion should be rarely if ever used. However
if
> you HAVE TO use it, it does come with an overhead. It is a routine which
has to
> be called, and it may end up copying data around and cost you cpu time.
>


it may or it may not. There have been many instances with a few compilers
that I have
used in which many instances of unchecked conversion caused absolutely no
copy and
no function call. The overlay approach is sometimes useful but I would not
yank out that
big stick unless you really need it.