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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ChineseT,UTF8 Received: by 10.216.235.32 with SMTP id t32mr677956weq.7.1344849429003; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Path: q11ni107064060wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!news.bcc.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!78.46.240.70.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Vasiliy Molostov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:01:49 +0400 Organization: None Message-ID: References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: Xw13RWgh8yxgPSv0x3+H9w.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.01 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-08-07T01:01:49+04:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0= =BB(=D0=B0) =D0=B2 =D1=81=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C= =D0=BC=D0=B5 Mon, = 06 Aug 2012 21:58:25 +0400: > On 06.08.12 17:50, Vasiliy Molostov wrote: >> Robert A Duff =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0= =D0=BB(=D0=B0) =D0=B2 =D1=81=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1= =8C=D0=BC=D0=B5 = >> Mon, 06 >> Aug 2012 18:33:42 +0400: >> >>> "Randy Brukardt" writes: >>> >> So indeed 'inlining' belongs to subprogram specification in the same = = >> way as >> calling convention. > > Inlining and convention are aspects typically related to translation, > aspects that would not normally affect the resulting > executable program except in the way that, say, > optimization switches do. They will affect already compiled modules. As you might know Ada aimed t= o = minimize recompilations. It is the common thing and one of major reasons why ada has so much of the stuff with these visibilities and packages. Why you have decided that calling convention is an optinization? > Optimization switches are not usually > part of subprogram's public specifications either. Why (convention) is not a part? What is usually? Yesterday I wrote some code and it has specs along with inline, just aft= er = subprogram spec. Today you said that it is not usual. Not usual for whom? > So why > should inline need to be in the public view of a subprogram's spec? Because it is a part of the specification. both of them convention and = inline are not optimisation, but code representation. My choice is to see this as a part of specification. Much convenient. > When you c&p a subprogram's spec, when is that? When I use UML generator and wish to output subprogram specification and= = its properties (e.g. inlining or convention) be printed in one pass (line, stanza, = sentence). > Why should > aspects like Inline or Convention be part of the copy, > which is not to be the original for a reason? What is an original? Its unclear. The way that usual works fine is to add brick or remove it. Since the = brick is atomic element. You are asking about how to get two bricks instead of one - a common bri= ck = and a small which is a supplement to the first one, being placed somewhe= re = else in a private part. And operations you offer are - add one, and then add its extent, searchi= ng = appropriate place. And otherwise - remove common, and then searching its= = extent somewhere else. What is the profit? It costs to much but I do not see any profit. A good way is to use Inline as a configuration pragma, which will be = processed along with other stuff like elimination of unused code. And of= = sourse, only if it is possible to inline, since library developer can = enable/disable this, as Randy said - its a permission to the compiler to= = inline a subprogram.