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: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167708795 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon Anthony says > > "I don't see how, as most programs will not have _any_ nesting. > Period. So displays or static links are irrelevant for nearly all > cases. So, the issue is irrelevant to [probably not even hyperbole > here] 99+% of subprogram calls. Which means that there really is no > distributed overhead (at least not as I understand the term)." > > This is wildly overstated. I would say that any large program that has > no nested procedures at all is poorly written, and I have seen very > few large program (actually none in Ada) that had no nesting at all. I can agree with this (even the "wildly" bit :-)) > On the other hand, I have *quite* often seen programs using nesting > *very* extensively, where the program was divided into large procedures, > containing many nested procedures, where the majority of calls are to > procedures contained within other procedures. And I would say that these are examples where "poorly written" would equally apply. > I don't believe Jon's figure of 99+% of subprogram calls being to library > level subprograms is anywhere near right, and I would guess it is just > a rhetorical guess rather than any kind of measurement. Across an Yes, no real data - only anecdotal evidence. Hence the "hyperbole caveat". > admitedly small sample of large programs that I was involved in measuring, > we saw over 80% of the calls being to procedures that were nested inside > other procedures. I find that a little surprising, but facts is facts. I would also say that this is very likely an indication that something has gone wrong. Not in the measurement, but in the programs. > In any case, I agree it is probably not a critical point. gcc uses static Check! /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com