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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,103803355c3db607
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr5554249pbc.1.1342298601243;
        Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11715pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT (GCC) Profile Guided Compilation
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:43:20 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <a6e3v8FvsvU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <dac2857a-6f74-4ecb-a5d2-f6b73fbd0ecc@googlegroups.com>
 <dd9d3648-4538-4aa2-8a0e-557bed1799b3@googlegroups.com>
 <38b9c365-a2b2-4b8b-8d2a-1ea39d08ce86@googlegroups.com>
 <d15a813f-d697-4c80-ad7c-d110382b92d7@googlegroups.com>
 <982d531a-3972-4971-b802-c7e7778b8649@googlegroups.com>
 <520bdc39-6004-4142-a227-facf14ebb0e8@googlegroups.com>
 <4ff08cb2$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <a4f2a43e-5593-48f6-9e0f-7d0057874f94@googlegroups.com>
 <4ff1d731$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <cdbe38d2-c8b0-41b2-9830-d913aefa200c@googlegroups.com>
 <fed934c8-9cff-4905-811d-9f9d3050d0b1@googlegroups.com>
 <4ff41d38$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <26b778c4-5abc-4fbf-94b0-888c2ce71831@googlegroups.com>
 <4ff43956$0$6576$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <2dba1140-4f28-4fb8-ace4-2c10f3a02313@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net
 3AM5Iuz2y9HGHF+uJ/2D1Q/uGIxijh3Lq5pOEmv9Hu5eIJ1uzMWGnjeWVpxaDi6hb9
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EM0DtaHqnJSZ/z9ih5mr4vYFXo4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
In-Reply-To: <2dba1140-4f28-4fb8-ace4-2c10f3a02313@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-14T23:43:20+03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12-07-14 23:17 , Keean Schupke wrote:
>
> Okay, I think I have tracked down the performance problem, but I am
> not sure how to fix it. It would appear that C++ code that returns a
> boolean from a function, generates a decision tree using tests and
> branches, whereas Ada is setting the result into a Boolean variable.
> This has the result that C++ is bailing out of the evaluation as soon
> as it can (IE if one side of an and is false, or one side of an or is
> true), but Ada is always evaluating all parts of the expressions.
>
> Is this a difference in language semantics, and what is the best way
> to deal with it? Do I need to rewrite all 'and' and 'or' statements
> in conditionals as nested if statements to get the evaluate only as
> far as necessary semantics like C/C++?

Use the short-circuit forms of "and" and "or": "and then" and "or else".

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .