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!news.mixmin.net!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: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:22:35 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vhp6rxqoxmjfy8@garhos>
References: <f3c0cf89-6993-4b83-b4fe-8a920ce23a14@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <h25ogo4zscyo$.y5kkbnqkhgn3.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8349c981-4dca-49dc-9189-8ea726234de3@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <i3sjn9$3n7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: OqdZOHVYLgcL4k6eJUKLaA.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/10.61 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13526
Date: 2010-08-20T09:22:35+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:26:45 +0200, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com=
>  =

a =E9crit:

> "Elias Salom=E3o Helou Neto" <eshneto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8349c981-4dca-49dc-9189-8ea726234de3@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com=
...
> ...
>> Yes, I know that. I am, however, writing code within that 1% of
>> applications that would be tremendously affected if there is no way t=
o
>> access arrays with no range checking. So I am asking very precisely:
>> does Ada allow me to do non range-checked access to arrays?

> So I'm suggesting that you try to avoid premature optimization. I can
> believe that there will be cases where you'll need to suppress range  =

> checks, but I'd also suggest that those will be far rarer than you are=
  =

> thinking.

Sorry for non-french reader, however the page I have read makes me think=
  =

about this topic.

That is there, page 28:
http://www.infres.enst.fr/~pautet/sar/fset/LangageAdaTempsReel.pdf

Pragma Supress is quoted in this document, ... which is a document about=
  =

real-time applications. Pragma Supress may be indeed most of time better=
  =

suited for that area. At least, this may fund the idea that this Pragma =
 =

was not first intended to save 0.001s execution time on common  =

applications.