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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,400766bdbcd86f7c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
Sender: malo@0x53586c67.boanxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: This can't be done in Ada...or?
References: <1108139611.709714.36170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <2IcPd.6268$mG6.1474@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <mailman.139.1108216901.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <iaxPd.6841$mG6.4148@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <1108372232.436036.318690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <UxbQd.520$IU.22@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <1108456053.837461.20340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <m3wttaciqw.fsf@0x53586c67.boanxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk>
 <rlszmy66vfg.fsf@jacob.crs4.it>
From: Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk>
Date: 15 Feb 2005 10:31:26 +0100
Message-ID: <m3sm3ycgpd.fsf@0x53586c67.boanxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.88.108.103
X-Trace: 1108459886 dtext02.news.tele.dk 163 83.88.108.103:56409
X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8325
Date: 2005-02-15T10:31:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:

> Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> > "Per Lindquist" <commander@death-star.com> writes:
> 
> > > One of our target environments is a time-critical real-time
> > > system. We are worried about the execution overhead implied by a
> > > package instantiation (or any 'new' statement) in every subprogram
> > > in the system.
> > > 
> > > Will your solution cause overhead for each subprogram call?
> > 
> > A compile-time instantiation of a package has nothing to do with
> > run-time efficiency. You can also define a new type in a subprogram,
> > which doesn't affect run-time efficiency either.
> 
> Aren't the compilers (theoretically) allowed to delay the
> instantiation of the packgage until run-time?

Hm yes, I think they are - as the semantics is written as an "as-if"
semantics. But if the generic package body does not need to be
elaborated, there will probably not be any overhead.

> 
> Jacob
> -- 
> "Only Hogwarts students really need spellcheckers"
>                                 -- An anonymous RISKS reader

- Mark