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,ac6c4134c47b12b0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Elaboration checks
Date: 2000/02/13
Message-ID: <8873ge$7vk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585332547
References: <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 13 20:17:21 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-02-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>,
  Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> about 15% of our executable appear to be made up of
> elaboration checks (this is the size difference after
> inserting configuration pragma suppress (elaboration_check)).

Sounds like your compiler is doing absolutely NO optimization
of elaboration checks at all, which can indeed lead to pretty
gruesome code. If you used GNAT, then the checking is typically
done at compile time, and you have static safety plus almost no
overhead from elaboration checking.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.