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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,acba876b1e3c9639
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!fdn.fr!freenix!news.enst.fr!news.rfc1149.net!not-for-mail
From: Duncan Sands <baldrick@free.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT Optimization of Constant Expressions
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:35:23 +0200
Organization: ENST, France
Message-ID: <mailman.153.1179509730.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: <1179355028.624745.258370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
	<87k5v631kp.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <f2kn4p$av6$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.enst.fr 1179509749 1953 137.194.161.2 (18 May 2007 17:35:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:35:49 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com>
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Return-Path: <baldrick@free.fr>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
In-Reply-To: <f2kn4p$av6$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ada-france.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9rc1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup"
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Leafnode-NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.191.17.134
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15838
Date: 2007-05-18T19:35:23+02:00

Hi Randy,

> That doesn't match the OP's original description of the problem. He said
> that declaring constants in front of the expression made it run fast, even
> if they were *not used* in the expression in the loop. That could only
> happen if the compiler did a common subexpression elimination in that case,
> and a common subexpression elimination is *only* valid on a function call if
> it is Pure. (Other functions could have significant side effects that
> eliminating the extra calls would make the program incorrect, for example if
> the function is a random number generator.)
> 
> I think it is more likely that it didn't recognize the functions as being
> worth hoisting (there is only one instance of each in the original program)
> or it didn't do so because of other concerns. In thinking about it now, the
> former is probably more likely.

while what you say is very logical, unfortunately it seems to be wrong: I
checked and these functions are not being marked pure.  So how come declaring
a constant helps?  I don't know - I didn't look into it yet.

Ciao,

Duncan.