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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a34b7ad6c6a0774 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.190.251.MISMATCH!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!teleglobe.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.netfront.net!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:57:44 -0700 Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net/ Message-ID: References: <1jn1a4o.1dfllwo1uin3imN%csampson@inetworld.net> <1jn36d6.se2f0g1edjjnyN%csampson@inetworld.net> <61f149b9-00ff-40cd-9698-01e69fdc5c0f@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <12ce49e6-169e-4e35-b82f-27de0d9b1ceb@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.211.74.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 1281736668 41610 75.211.74.242 (13 Aug 2010 21:57:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:57:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6 In-Reply-To: <12ce49e6-169e-4e35-b82f-27de0d9b1ceb@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13248 Date: 2010-08-13T14:57:44-07:00 List-Id: On 08/13/2010 08:10 AM, Elias Salom�o Helou Neto wrote: > > ask for the suppression, but it does NOT mandate the compiler to > actually > skip such checks. Well, this is, to say the least, funny - unless I Right. As others have pointed out, are some platforms on which a check cannot be suppressed, and since the ARM is platform-independent, it does not mandate the impossible. But economics plays an important role. Customers won't pay for a compiler that doesn't behave as expected. As a result, I'm not aware of any compiler that doesn't actually suppress checks (that can be suppressed) when requested. (If there is one, no doubt someone will set me straight.) It's also been noted that some hardware performs some checks for free. On such a platform, suppressing the check may take more time than leaving it it. So if you are not able to meet timing requirements with checks, blindly suppressing checks may make the timing worse, not better. -- Jeff Carter "Have you gone berserk? Can't you see that that man is a ni?" Blazing Saddles 38 --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---