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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c3c6:: with SMTP id t189mr729579iof.0.1555052396178;
        Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6950:: with SMTP id p16mr32978225oto.91.1555052395954;
 Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!136no68253itk.0!news-out.google.com!w17ni91itb.0!nntp.google.com!136no68251itk.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <q8og92$1u7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=185.34.132.4;
 posting-account=Srm5lQoAAAAEMX9rv2ilEKR6FDPapmSq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 185.34.132.4
References: <b411a770-5e86-4d5e-9e43-e52843be724d@googlegroups.com>
 <q8og92$1u7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f572578d-1e73-4b20-b2be-e5b80a8d95b3@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why can't objects be static in Ada?
From: Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:59:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56118
Date: 2019-04-11T23:59:55-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 12:49:07 AM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> fix this. There's no good reason (outside of Annex E issues) for declaring 
> any package preelaborated, unless you like fighting errors a lot. C.4 is a 
> load of hooey, it's not actually implementable on the margins, and there's 
> no reason for any compiler to generate more code than necessary. Ergo, 
> you'll most likely get the same code whether or not you declare something 
> Preelaborated, so why bother with all of the hassles?

For certification purposes, I think there is a value in avoiding elaboration code.

http://docs.adacore.com/live/wave/gnat_ugx/html/gnat_ugx/gnat_ugx/support_for_certified_systems.html#avoiding-elaboration-code

I had the need to deal with it myself though.

Regards,
Mark L