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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,18e0d6e2d3937639
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr10335206pbc.1.1340546233738;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 l9ni14634pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.alt.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news
From: Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: begin/end reducing memory consumption?
Message-ID: <9eac4a716124fe41be777a3e6e5d2ce8@dizum.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
X-Received-Bytes: 1671
Date: 2012-06-24T15:57:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>   This is mere speculation: 
>   The block statement makes some variables "more" local 
>   and the implementation of Vectors can perform some memory 
>   management. 
>   I'd try -O2 -funroll-loops [-gnatn], too, replacing -O3. 
>   (Some oddly related information (or maybe not having something 
>   to do with this at all) may be available if you have GCC 
>   -fdump-tree-slp-details. I have seen some decisions reported 
>   there to do with exceptions handling being obstacles; 
>   that was FSF GNAT, though, GNAT GPL seemed "better", and 
>   the issue might be gone with most recent FSF GNATs.) 

thanks, I tried that. Neither -gnatn, -O2 nor -O2 -funroll-loops resolved the issue, however.
-fdump-tree-slp-details generates a huge amount of what seems like potentially useful
information; however, the begin/end pair renames many variables (D.[some number] -> D.[some
number - 40] or so), so I don't get a useful diff without first changing back all those
identifiers; I'll try to do that later.
Anyway, what kind of memory management do we need
here? Except for the loop indices, I thought that the compiler shouldn't have to allocate any
variables at all. And even if it had to, shouldn't those be freed again after procedure
Propagate terminates?
best regards,
Sebastian