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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c350c9f790688d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-13 00:30:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: martin.dowie@btopenworld.com (Martin Dowie) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: renames and access Date: 13 Feb 2004 00:30:42 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.138.254.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1076661042 16244 127.0.0.1 (13 Feb 2004 08:30:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5521 Date: 2004-02-13T00:30:42-08:00 List-Id: "Francesco Bochicchio" wrote in message > I thought of that: > > 1. It adds a function call overhead for each time one of the variables is > accessed ( and it happens a lot ) What sort of processor are you using and what sort of timing constraints do you have? You may find that the time taken to perform the function call (even a lot of them) isn't as much as you would think. This is especially true if porting from, for example, a 68020 to a PPC740. In some cases, including function/procedure calls, instead of inlining the equivilant code and speed you app up (by avoid cache misses).