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,baa6871d466e5af9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body Date: 1997/04/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237566509 References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <336089AF.6046@elca-matrix.ch> <01bc5260$373835e0$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: i<< There may be (and indeed, experience suggests, there will be) situations where the potential call graph indicates a circularity (i.e. that there is no order of elaboration which the compiler can determine will ensure that an unelaborated subprogram is never called), but where there is, in fact, an elaboration order in which normal execution of the program will not cause an unelaborated subprogram to be called.>> Well of coruse this is true, and is why a purely static solution cannot be 100% accurate. But It is *very* rare, I would say non-existent almost, for anything other than specially constructed tests to run into this, and the limitation in expressive power from forbidding such cycles is negligible.