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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5b3aa4bc9027f04e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.250.MISMATCH!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Arrays
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
References: 
 <1a8008fb-c840-45bc-824c-d10eec9fe569@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <jkDvl.615065$yE1.211920@attbi_s21>
 <0caa9cf8-0620-4544-9b2c-2c9f24142b7f@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <zqGvl.19243$DP1.9724@attbi_s22> <cvRvl.19954$DP1.9142@attbi_s22>
 <386b0e00-a1c6-4c5f-adf7-89b8543d0e2d@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <Xns9BD3DEB24B6F2pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 20 Mar 2009 01:53:28 GMT
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: c9c03197.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=c@I2Cc^bI5=]O[;Ogh^:=3K6_LM2JZB_3CSHIc8[9`153?@`i3kGa5;O];I[ofTNg1Cj_II=7N7:=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5167
Date: 2009-03-20T01:53:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

belteshazzar <gbelteshazzar@gmail.com> wrote in
news:386b0e00-a1c6-4c5f-adf7-89b8543d0e2d@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: 

> Unfortuantely this is an optimisation and actually doesn't occur with
> optimisation off. (I just ran a test program). I'm told that due to
> the significant performance hit of the array initialisers when
> optimisation is turned off we can't use that.

Are those initializers actually necessary?

type Unconstrained_Array is array(Integer range <>) of Integer;

My_Array : Unconstrained_Array(-10_000 .. 10_000);

In the above the array is uninitialized. Yes, you have to provide 
constraints, but you don't have to initialize the array here (obviously 
you'll need to do so eventually... perhaps as part of your algorithm). The 
code you showed use an array aggregate to initialize the array... the 
constraints where taken from the initializer. However, there are other ways 
to specify the constraints.

Or am I totally confused?

Peter