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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fb8bad9f41ba1413
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Tardieu <sam@ada.eu.org>
Subject: Re: Pragma inline results in duplicate strings?
Date: 1997/06/04
Message-ID: <m3hgfe629z.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 246037616
Sender: sam@zaphod.enst.fr
References: <5n2ohf$htn$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
To: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Sam's machine
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>>>>> "Dale" == Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> writes:

Dale> Is the string duplicated for each inline call?

Not with GNAT.

See the following piece of code:

   with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;

   procedure T is

      procedure Break;
      pragma Inline (Break);

      procedure Break is
      begin
         Put_Line ("<br>");
      end Break;

   begin
      Break;
      Break;
   end T;

It generates the following on a i386 with GNAT:

           .file   "t.adb"
           .version        "01.01"
   gcc2_compiled.:
   .section        .rodata
   .LC0:
           .string "<br>"
           .align 4
   .LC1:
           .long 1
           .long 4
 
(the .text section has been omitted)

So it appears that GNAT is sharing strings literal, at least for
several instances of the same string in the same package. I haven't
tested how it behaves with external calls to Break.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@ada.eu.org