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: 103376,2a34b7ad6c6a0774
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:37:38 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vheeg0ilxmjfy8@garhos>
References: <f3c0cf89-6993-4b83-b4fe-8a920ce23a14@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <f208e17c-0511-4397-a13a-39a3da6eef5e@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr5i985py.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <i3nbgd$a3e$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1jn1a4o.1dfllwo1uin3imN%csampson@inetworld.net>
 <m262zhyogo.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1jn36d6.se2f0g1edjjnyN%csampson@inetworld.net> <m28w4bfxdy.fsf@pushface.org>
 <C88A1675.14CE6A%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <61f149b9-00ff-40cd-9698-01e69fdc5c0f@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <12ce49e6-169e-4e35-b82f-27de0d9b1ceb@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <i44f4s$18ka$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: M2yP1Cx/h9YxW/Ct5b534Q.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.60 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13252
Date: 2010-08-14T00:37:38+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:57:44 +0200, Jeffrey Carter  =

<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> a =E9crit:
> It's also been noted that some hardware performs some checks for free.=
  =

> On such a platform, suppressing the check may take more time than  =

> leaving it it. So if you are not able to meet timing requirements with=
  =

> checks, blindly suppressing checks may make the timing worse, not bett=
er.
When you are talking about hardware level checks, are you talking about =
 =

check for null address divide par zero and so on or something else ? I  =

have never heard about a machine with a level array type and an hardware=
  =

check for array access index. Would be interesting if you could be more =
 =

explicit about these hardware checks.


-- =

There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.