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: 2000/02/15
Message-ID: <88bk0i$bku$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585962011
References: <38A6BB10.560D973A@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
 <38A85CC1.8E5DF76@averstar.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 15 13:23:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-02-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38A85CC1.8E5DF76@averstar.com>,
  Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> wrote:

> You should definitely talk with Rational about this.
> If you are placing the suppress pragmas properly, then there
> should be no overhead for elaboration checking.

But that's what he reported! He said that the program got 15%
smaller once he put in the suppress pragmas, his concern is
with the overhead when the checks are NOT suppressed!


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