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: 103376,29fe9a340e0d180d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Depending on passing mechanism
Date: 1997/10/15
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971015210344.26249A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 280886518
References: <x2hgal3jxa.fsf@moon.inf.fu-berlin.de> <dewar.876842858@merv>
 <hbaker-1410971205270001@10.0.2.1> <622b4t$nhe$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
 <dewar.876952904@merv>
X-Trace: 876977006 28563 bpr  206.184.139.132
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 15 Oct 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> ... about procedure argument passing ...
>
> Similarly, over-constraining the order of evaluation (which
> affects only programs with strange side effects) can significantly damange
> the efficiency of generated code.

	I have seen this particular claim challenged by several other
compiler writers and no evidence was advanced to support it. Do you have
evidence that leaving order of evaluation arbitrary is a performance
enabler? 

	FWIW, one of my favorite languages (Sather) has order of
evaluation of defined in its specification, and the designers definitely 
wanted a language which could be compiled to fast code with existing 
compiler technology.

-- Brian