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-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8147e9052e4bc0df
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <briang000@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Child vs nested package : efficiency matter
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 21:17:51 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <htsean$83a$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <op.vdgww3flxmjfy8@garhos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 01:17:11 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="8fh9upQM2sUsdhH8G2SnPA";
	logging-data="8298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JCE8hNPdkzwvTteYINwyH"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
In-Reply-To: <op.vdgww3flxmjfy8@garhos>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4U/46SiQC0vlBZQs+1hU+W9KbzY=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12153
Date: 2010-05-29T21:17:51-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Hillo,
> 
> 
> For some reasons, I've turned some nested package -- packages nested in 
> the body of package -- into a set of child packages instead.
> 
> I've noticed the application's execution time is now an average of 125% 
> of that of the old implementation.
> 
> The implementation did not changed otherwise and is still the same.
> 
> What can make invokation of subprograms slower when the subprograms are 
> in a child package rather than in a nested package ?
> 
> Note: this is with optimization enabled -- with -O -- and both old and 
> new implementation was compiled with the same options.
> 
> I can't explain that and can't imagine a reason why. That's a mystery to 
> me.
Presuming you're using GNAT (a guess based on your previous posts), 
could using -gnatN (as opposed to -gnatn) help?

--Bg