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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76dd26495a8f3b25 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-28 19:07:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Constant array declarations are not causing a compilation error when not fully initialized. References: <3B8C2CA5.9D957ED@avercom.net> X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:07:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.82.199 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com 999050848 24.7.82.199 (Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:07:28 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:07:28 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12541 Date: 2001-08-29T02:07:28+00:00 List-Id: >how sophisticated such inevitable-run-time-error detection >must be. In fact, Ada 95 goes further than Ada 83 in >terms of specifying cases where inevitable-run-time-errors >must be detected, but it clearly can't go all the way, >as that would require the solution to the "halting" problem ;-). Today's PC's CPU is nearly 1,000x as fast as the original. How much of that typically goes into faster compilation (ie, bigger programs), how much to more complex languages, and how much to increased compile time analysis?