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 10.224.73.200 with SMTP id r8mr1760776qaj.8.1407917109857;
        Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.82.81 with SMTP id g75mr18162qgd.12.1407917109846; Wed,
 13 Aug 2014 01:05:09 -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!news.glorb.com!v10no6674253qac.1!news-out.google.com!j6ni43193qas.0!nntp.google.com!v10no6674249qac.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lsf56u$fm5$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=193.71.180.114;
 posting-account=uulyKwoAAAA86DO0ODu--rZtbje8Sytn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.71.180.114
References: <892c6798-489d-400a-bb9a-7a14605c493f@googlegroups.com>
 <V3AGv.280259$wR1.68708@fx20.iad>
 <58a951df-217b-48ee-bd0b-f9953f5b622b@googlegroups.com>
 <53eaea2e$0$32377$862e30e2@ngroups.net> <lsf56u$fm5$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e4b1886a-c8db-428a-9a4e-1447a7d5641f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pointer to instance of indefinite array?
From: Egil H H <ehh.public@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:05:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21711
Date: 2014-08-13T01:05:09-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:47:40 AM UTC+2, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> I remember something about the ICC compiler supporting an implementation
> 
> specific attribute similar to 'Unrestricted_Access. Is there a significant
> 
> advantage in using 'Unrestricted_Access in user programs, perhaps suppression
> 
> of more checks so that to something runs a lot faster?


I don't know the performance characteristics of 'Unrestricted_Access, but it enables the effect of 'Unchecked_Access for subprograms.