Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?

[Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>]

On Aug 22, 6:59 pm, Michael S <already5cho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:06 pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:00:31 -0700, Michael S wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 3:39 pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:32:00 -0700, Michael S wrote:
>
> > [... discussion of private types exported to module A from B]
>
> > >> This puts B in charge of the object lifetimes; if A wants to access a
> > >> stale object, expect an exception.
>
> > > Exception, if I am lucky.
> > > If I am less lucky, the physical place of old auto object is now
> > > occupied by new auto object of the same or compatible type and the call
> > > to accessor caused silent corruption.
>
> > If a module has exported a pointer to an "auto object" then the
> > accessibility checks have been circumvented by unchecked_access or
> > unchecked_conversion. In which case ... yes, caveat programmer!
>
> My knowledge of Ada is rather rusty :(
> Is it correct to say that applying 'access attribute to auto objects
> is a syntax error and that the only possible way of getting access to
> such objects is by applying  'unchecked_access attribute?
>
> Thinking about it, it makes sense.
> 99% of cases of passing pointers to auto object as parameters in C are
> not because programmer really wants to pass pointer, but because of
> absence of 'out' and 'in out' modes and due to inefficiency of passing
> of big objects in C language equivalent of 'in' mode.
> Also nearly 100% of uses of  pointers to auto object in the local
> context are due to [by now quite often false] programmer's believe
> that he can optimize better than optimizing compiler.

Wrote it before seeing Bill's post above. Sorry.