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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93" Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/10 Message-ID: <97011009463976@psavax.pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 209180568 sender: Ada programming language comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU x-vms-to: SMTP%"INFO-ADA@VM1.NODAK.EDU" newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-vms-cc: CONDIC Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jay Martin writes: >It seems to me need for "pragma inline" and "inline" is/was social. >It came from compiler writers continually slacking off since the 60's >and not implementing inlining. Its hard to blame them as it didn't >seem a market priority due a totally irresponsible and incompetent I am mildly disturbed by the notion that the compiler should perform inlining on its own with no input from the programmer - at least if the target is an embedded system. There are times when you want to force inlining for speed isues and there are reasons you may want to totally supress inlining for verification issues. (You may have module test tools/requirements which need to keep the code for procedures callable rather than inlined.) For workstation types of apps, this may not be an issue, but those of us who have to take our code into a lab and peer at it through logic analyzers, etc, would like to maintain some control over this. >Computer Science Academia which produced a generation of programmers >who think "C" is Computer Science and had the attitude that it was the >job of programmers not compilers to do optimizations and said such >things as "I do low level pointer arithmetic so that my COMPILER runs >faster (a top UC Berkeley Graduate). Pragma inline gave us a hammer >to which to pound the compiler writers into submission. > I'm with you on this - basically. I want the compiler to be capable of all sorts of optimizations so that you aren't depending on any given programmer to know specific tricks needed to get efficient code out of some particular language implementation. (Obviously, different compilers may generate dramatically different code from the same statements and what might be an "optimization" for one compiler {or given release thereof} might make bad code out of a different compiler {or subsequent release of the same one.}) But us embedded guys really *need* the ability to turn on/off specific optimizations (constant folding, inlining, etc.) because of hardware considerations, test issues and so on. I'd prefer that capability from a command line switch rather than a pragma in the source, but I'll take it either way. MDC Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 561.796.8997 M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997 Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 561.796.4669 P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM =============================================================================== "There is just one thing I can promise you about the outer-space program: your dollars will go farther." -- Wernher von Braun ===============================================================================