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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interfaces, Inlining, and Dispatching
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:53:58 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <od1l3q$gth$1@dont-email.me>
References: <0a9b7c30-cb2b-4bd5-ae34-4b141275ce9d@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@notmyhomepage.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 05:50:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="df86919c9e8d32e09aa3ffa6232c7cae";
	logging-data="17329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PJ+TQUN5apWuny6aIUwO9ye8O2bVC5Xk="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
In-Reply-To: <0a9b7c30-cb2b-4bd5-ae34-4b141275ce9d@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MnwLTAmsetrkDCNY2zg7SFhPPCc=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46587
Date: 2017-04-17T07:53:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 16.04.17 17:59, Jere wrote:
> As I am messing around with interface types I am trying to figure
> out some things:
>
> 1.  Is it possible for compilers to inline interface procedure
> implementations if the type being used is known at compile time?
> I.E: not using a class wide type or class wide access type to
> invoke the procedure.
>
> 2.  If so, do current compilers implement this?
>
> 3.  Assuming another part of the code use a separate implementation
> but dispatches from a class wide type or access type, will this
> revoke the inlining in the other code mentioned in question 1?
> I.E. Can the compiler have an inline version for statically
> dispatched procedure calls and a non inline version for dynamically
> dispatched calls?
>
> 4.  If so, do current compilers implement this?

Editing the program so that it can be compiled, and then
choosing one of the freely available compilers has answered
questions 3 and 4 for me. I believe that strictly speaking,
an Inline aspect must apply to a subprogram if the compiler
is to remove the call in favor of inlining. I don't see,
both physically by looking at generated code, and logically
by guessing, mostly, that a compiler isn't allowed to translate
a subprogram in ways that preserve the intended semantics.