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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.236.11.80 with SMTP id 56mr3479508yhw.22.1407339891936;
        Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.191.39 with SMTP id gv7mr100634obc.10.1407339891776;
 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v10no4879466qac.1!news-out.google.com!px9ni584igc.0!nntp.google.com!h18no15103440igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lrti02$9d0$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
References: <lrrnc5$kmk$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lrtdgp$93q$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <lrtghv$vad$1@dont-email.me>
 <77c54c0b-ad0a-46f7-9fd9-dc6b1806b116@googlegroups.com>
 <lrti02$9d0$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <901d160f-12ae-4ad2-bd42-211cedf9ceed@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT 4.9 - missing optimization feature?
From: Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:44:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21489
Date: 2014-08-06T08:44:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:35:27 AM UTC-7, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> > The point is that code *could* be generated not to call Adjust in the T1 case, but GNAT doesn't do so.

> Yes, but I was asking the OP, where he assumed that the non-existent
> adjust was not called due to optimization...

That isn't how I interpreted his question.  But yes, perhaps I should have let him answer for himself.

                            -- Adam