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,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical,
Date: 1997/05/20
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680002005972249330001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 242754183
References: 
 <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com><01bc6006$c13cf880$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com><dewar.863605491@merv><01bc6182$30e3a7c0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com><EAA6so.JAz@world.std.com>
 <EACHUS.97May16192037@spectre.mitre.org>
 <01bc63a2$e3e1a940$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001805971550190001@news.ni.net>
 <EACHUS.97May19155433@spectre.mitre.org>
 <mheaney-ya023680001905971935290001@news.ni.net>
 <01bc6562$cb02f3e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <01bc6562$cb02f3e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>, "Nick
Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:


>Does anyone know of any Ada compiler which performs this optimisation for
>subprograms which can be deduced to be 'independent' (definitely having no
>side-effects)?

The word is "pure."  And GNAT has a pragma (pragma Pure, I think), so that
you can tell the compiler that a function has no side effect.


>Wouldn't it be helpful if the compiler gave a warning whenever a
>non-independent function was declared inside a protected object?

Yes, it certainly would...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271