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: 103376,2a34b7ad6c6a0774
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:58:11 +0100
Message-ID: <C88B3833.14CF2B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <f3c0cf89-6993-4b83-b4fe-8a920ce23a14@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <f208e17c-0511-4397-a13a-39a3da6eef5e@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr5i985py.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <i3nbgd$a3e$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1jn1a4o.1dfllwo1uin3imN%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <m262zhyogo.fsf@pushface.org> <1jn36d6.se2f0g1edjjnyN%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <m28w4bfxdy.fsf@pushface.org> <C88A1675.14CE6A%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <61f149b9-00ff-40cd-9698-01e69fdc5c0f@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net xxJlBeHDhRWPgo5nmniPFwLHvKHahDKol16xH44Y9EDeKGfcEG
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DeHL50xKYVJnbq/8XvVRSuJ2ypY=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
Thread-Topic: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers
Thread-Index: Acs7CLYIf1GkADiQpEuKXTukqyXB9w==
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13229
Date: 2010-08-13T17:58:11+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13/08/2010 16:08, in article
61f149b9-00ff-40cd-9698-01e69fdc5c0f@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, "Elias
Salom�o Helou Neto" <eshneto@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) You can, in more than one way, tell the compiler to suppress most
> (any?) checks, but people do not advise to do so. Even if I say that I
> do need that :(
> 
> 2) It is not necessary for the compiler to actually suppress any
> checking! It seems that the LRM demands the compiler to allow you to
> ask for the suppression, but it does mandate the compiler to actually
> skip such checks. Well, this is, to say the least, funny - unless I
> misunderstood something here.

Quite so. You can be confident that the compiler will suppress the checks as
asked, *unless* you are using an architecture (e.g. B6700) where that is
simply impossible. Since Ada is a portable language, the semantics has to
allow for the latter possibility.

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk