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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,27db9c02e8783e58
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.216.237.155 with SMTP id y27mr1120891weq.11.1343313122228;
        Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 ge7ni75591628wib.0!nntp.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.swapon.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Differences in finalization of controlled objects between gcc 4.6
 and gcc 4.7
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:56:14 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <juahcg$gg9$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <50080f7b$0$9525$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <ju93rg$43j$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1342752977 16905 69.95.181.76 (20 Jul 2012 02:56:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 02:56:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-07-19T21:56:14-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Markus Sch�pflin" <no.spam@spam.spam> wrote in message 
news:ju93rg$43j$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Am 19.07.2012 15:45, schrieb Georg Bauhaus:
>> On 19.07.12 14:23, Markus Sch�pflin wrote:
>>> Is there a way to have the objects created in place directly in the 
>>> array?
>>
>> Can you make the type limited?
>
> No, I need to be able to copy them around. But IMHO that shouldn't make a 
> difference in this case, the compiler should be able to figure out that it 
> can construct the objects in place, shouldn't it?

If the type isn't limited, there are cases where you can't build the objects 
in place. And it's likely that the implementation of build-in-place 
functions is different than ones that copy (BiP probably passes in some 
memory and/or a storage pool; regular just returns a temporary created 
inside the function).

It's unlikely that an implementer would want to have two versions of a 
function, so its quite possible that they don't ever build-in-place 
non-limited objects.

(But there is a permission to do so, so you cannot depend on the Adjust 
being called.)

                                  Randy.