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.797290663@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070435
references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr> <3m0psq$fl2@stout.entertain.com>
 <3m40vpINN3p8@RA.DEPT.CS.YALE.EDU>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tom Griest said:

"Since the formal parameters for your function are unconstrated types,
there is probably a dynmaic allocation/initialization/deallocation
of the dope vectors for each of the parameters.  This might account
for some of the overhead."

nope, no dynamic alloocation is ever involved for bounds templates for
arrays in this situation.