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,e6c9800e35ccfeee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT: Performance of String functions
Date: 1997/07/20
Message-ID: <dewar.869405750@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257841533
References: <33CF3908.3DF62EEE@ericsson.com> <dewar.869241859@merv>
 <33D11806.6C59@online.no> <dewar.869371653@merv> <33D1D2BB.2023@online.no>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Tarjei said

<<As unbounded strings are allocated on the heap there is a potential
serious overhead in allocating and deallocating space for these strings
as they change size. The serious overhead can include system calls to
allocate or free space. I expect that it also include wholesale copying
of the contents of the strings.
>>

Right, that is generally true, we have considered, but not yet implemented,
a version of unbounded strings that would allocate a little growth space
in each string value so that, for example, if you are adding one character
at a time, you do not copy on every addition. I think this would be a
valuable improvement.

Your message sure does become clearer when we put the "un" into it at
the appropriate points, and what you say is quite right.

In any case the bottom line here is that the original posters comparison
was inappropriate. A comparison with VAX strings should use bounded
srtings, not unbounded strings