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,b44a149ee4e73a99
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Runtime check : what about you ?
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:26:29 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <itgrbo$d20$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <op.vw7rxjtgule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <itg75k$8bo$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <e0ac441f-db3e-4874-95ce-393524deef79@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1308356793 13376 69.95.181.76 (18 Jun 2011 00:26:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:26:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20913
Date: 2011-06-17T19:26:29-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:e0ac441f-db3e-4874-95ce-393524deef79@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
...
>And it was
>certainly part of the intent of Ada's designers that developers would
>develop their programs with checking turned on but then turn it off
>after the program has been tested and is ready to be put into
>production.  It's interesting to me that no one here has admitted
>doing this;

I've done it, but not much recently. Even computationally intensive programs 
like my Solitare solver only needed it in a couple of very limited 
locations. And in the most recent such cases, I restructured the code (and 
admittedly, made the compiler smarter) so that the checks aren't generated 
in the first place -- which is of course the best of both worlds -- fast 
code which the compiler has proved to have no check failures.

                                    Randy.