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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cf34599caf2fa938
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT function calling overhead
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <dewar.797262157@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070413
references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr> <3m0psq$fl2@stout.entertain.com>
 <1995Apr6.163740@di.epfl.ch>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robb comments that the bounds checks can make a difference, yes indeed!
and GNAT is not yet doing much on optimizing bounds checks. But if you
look at the post carefully, you will see that the comparison was with
checks turned off, at least that is the way I read it, in which case
more subtle things are at work!