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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.36.198 with SMTP id u6mr10349961qad.6.1377875841704; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.53.38 with SMTP id y6mr7369qeo.38.1377875841678; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!fx3no6198833qab.0!news-out.google.com!he10ni3964qab.0!nntp.google.com!fx3no6198830qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=RxNzCgoAAACA5KmgtFQuaU-WaH7rjnAO NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <66f24ada-122c-4c01-9f04-5bc92233a456@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Anonymous access types are evil, why? From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:17:21 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2091 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:17047 Date: 2013-08-30T08:17:21-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, August 30, 2013 12:29:17 AM UTC-7, ake.ragna...@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks for your analysis and especially the interesting result "an alloca= tor whose type is a named access type should be preferred over an allocator= whose type is anonymous". You're welcome, but I didn't mean for this to be taken as a general rule of= Ada programming. It looks like it's a helpful rule for this particular im= plementation (GNAT 2013), but I still don't know whether the implementation= is correct or whether the extra overhead you're seeing is actually necessa= ry. It could be that this is a problem with GNAT, and they'll fix it, and = that in the future there may not be a reason to prefer allocators whose typ= es are named. I just don't know. -- Adam