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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!skvax1.csc.ti.COM!linnig
From: linnig@skvax1.csc.ti.COM (Mike Linnig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: over ambitious optimizers
Message-ID: <8806241657.AA23329@ti.com>
Date: 24 Jun 88 16:48:42 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Folks,

I compiled the following procedure and discovered that the validated
compiler I was using had optimized away the first assignment of I. I was
really testing something else, but should it have deleted that assignemnt?

I can imagine that the function SOMEINT actually used the value of I in
it's calculation (it would be in the scope of I).

Is this an over ambitious optimizer?

	Mike Linnig,
	Texas Instruments

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEDURE leftside(i: IN OUT integer) IS

TYPE myarray  IS ARRAY(integer RANGE 1..15) OF integer;
anarray: myarray;

FUNCTION someint RETURN integer IS SEPARATE;

BEGIN
  I := 5;	-- OPTIMIZED AWAY !
  anarray(someint) := 3;
  i := 7;
END;