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-Thread: a07f3367d7,21aaebbd9205357c X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Received: by 10.224.18.132 with SMTP id w4mr12273030qaa.1.1362606269012; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.242.37 with SMTP id wn5mr2366975igc.15.1362606268721; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:44:28 -0800 (PST) Path: p7ni59qai.0!nntp.google.com!dd2no7628296qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:44:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <69291c5f-ffce-4b48-a1c5-aa76f308082f@googlegroups.com> <0b80a829-05d4-4f07-a954-3acb3b276d5b@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Please list all the Ada libraries you know From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:44:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-03-06T13:44:28-08:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:01:27 PM UTC-8, J-P. Rosen wrote: > Le 06/03/2013 18:08, Adam Beneschan a =E9crit : > > Anyway, though, my feeling is that once one has chosen to build a > > "source model" compiler--which means, if I understand it correctly, > > that if you WITH a package then the compiler has to read the original > > source of the WITH'ed package specification--then one has already > > decided that disk access time isn't an issue. (If it were, the > > compiler could do something to create a smaller, compressed version > > of the specification that it would read in instead of reading the > > original source.) So whatever good reasons there might be for GNAT > > to default to a particular case convention, saving disk read time > > probably isn't a valid reason. >=20 > It may well be the other way round. In a library model, you keep the > same information (about specs) in the form of tables, and it is not > obvious that they use less space than the source form. If you keep *all* information about spec declarations in the library file, = including information that isn't explicitly in the source file but that the= compiler fills in itself, you may be right. But that isn't what I said. = Clearly, the compiler could create a representation of a source specificati= on that includes only the important information that already exists in the = source file, and store it in a way that's much smaller than the original so= urce. I suppose that you could still call this a "source model", since the= file would still be in some sense a representation of the original source,= without any additional semantic information. But as far as I know, GNAT d= oesn't do anything like that. As far as I know, it rereads the original so= urce of every package you've WITH'ed, including all the comments. (Again, = someone please correct me if I'm wrong; but if GNAT creates any kind of=20 stripped-down version of the original source, I haven't seen it.) This doe= sn't sound like an implementation that makes decisions based on saving disk= access time. -- Adam