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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jacob Sparre Andersen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: {Pre,Post}conditions and side effects Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 09:46:07 +0200 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: <87617povr4.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> References: <2430252d-52a1-4609-acef-684864e6ca0c@googlegroups.com> <0a718b39-ebd3-4ab5-912e-f1229679dacc@googlegroups.com> <9ee5e186-5aaa-4d07-9490-0f9fdbb5ca18@googlegroups.com> <87tww5296f.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <871tj9dp5b.fsf@theworld.com> <87oali5i6n.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.249.206.131 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1432021567 8202 195.249.206.131 (19 May 2015 07:46:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:46:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:02/FQgo8CBhO4/FulzXFBWfu/t8= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25916 Date: 2015-05-19T09:46:07+02:00 List-Id: Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de writes: > On Mon, 18 May 2015, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > Well, as a very simmple example, consider this: > > (for all I in 2 .. N-1 => (N mod I) /= 0) > > You don't need a profiler to figure out that this is prohibitively > slow for largish N, do you? I don't need a profiler to estimate that it takes long time to execute, but I need a profiler to see where the compiler can't eliminate it from a critical path through static analysis. >> I am aware that we currently don't have as fine-grained control of >> assertions as that would require to work well, but I assume that this >> is something that can be discussed with the ARG and the compiler >> vendors. > > This is precisely my point! Good. I noticed an interesting proposal for an extension to the assertion policy control in one of the posts in this thread. I suppose we should push to have the ARG accept this (or something similar). Greetings, Jacob -- There really was only one way to make a person unlearn something ...