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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,98dc917fce16b418
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_Hibou57?= <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Performance of access type : a tiny mistake in the WikiBook ?
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <f4a9b321-7ab8-49e5-9fa1-373cf3553f5a@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
References: <91ad7397-27a8-4b9d-811e-6e62d485645c@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
	<C6F2D6E1.1275A5%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <31da5154-9739-4ead-8437-aaa5d70dc7e8@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
	<C6F2F11E.1275C5%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.141
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1254962936 5633 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2009 00:48:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:48:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.141;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8616
Date: 2009-10-07T17:48:56-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 8 oct, 02:30, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Do you have any solid reason to believe that such micromanagement has a
> significant effect on your program's performance? If it has, it might well
> be contrary to such generalized rules of thumb as the Wikibook propounds.
>
> I have a 14KSLOC program that runs three times as fast when I inline the
> appropriate (small, but heavily-used) subprograms.
>
> It runs *half* as fast if I replace the 3-statement body of one of these
> subprograms by 2 statements that seem "obviously" more efficient.
>
> The only way to answer such questions is to experiment with the
> alternatives, after you've done the really difficult stuff (i.e., getting it
> right, for now and for the foreseeable future), and then have a demonstrated
> need for better performance.
>
> --
> Bill Findlay
> <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk
I understand what you mean about testing, but I am mainly looking for
average answers. Just things to know and to have in mind. Even if
there is no required implementation, it is well known that a lot of
compilers share some common implementation designs. I'm seeking for
informations about it, just like the way I'm sometime reading about
general tips or thoughts (I used to do the same with some prior
languages like Pascal and Eiffel, it's a bit part of learning the
thing).