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: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.180.106.199 with SMTP id gw7mr1183161wib.0.1344849521107;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni107067359wiw.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!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:21:11 +0400
Organization: None
Message-ID: <op.win91lh8ka8ora@aspire.local>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <m2hasf10nc.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
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: 2012-08-07T17:21:11+04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> =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 Tue, 07 Aug 2012  =

14:01:27 +0400:

>>> A good way is to use Inline as a configuration pragma,
>>
>> Since Inline applies to program units, that won't work.  Moreover,
>> pragma inline, if used heavily, can be counterproductive, for example=
,
>> if it makes register allocation be at odds with the compiler's other
>> ideas. For example, sometimes GCC's vectorizer seems to require that =
a
>> function *not* be inlined, in order to increase overall speed of
>> execution.
>
> Completely agree. We found (on powerpc-wrs-vxworks) that globally
> inlining access subprograms (to return/update the value of a component=

> declared in a private part) increased the size and slowed the code. No=

> metrics, sorry.

I meant one of potential ways to apply Inline in a way similar to  =

Eliminate which will satisfy "clean" configuration pragma approach - pla=
ce  =

all of them in one file and name it as configuration without dirtying  =

source public or private part.

> (to return/update the value of a component
> declared in a private part)

But as I understand a question was to setup inlining pragma in a private=
  =

part for a subprogram which is specified in a public part.

-- =

=D0=9D=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D1=87=
=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=BC =D0=BA=D0=BB=D0=B8=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=82=D0=B5=
 =D0=B1=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=83=D0=B7=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B0 Opera: http://www.oper=
a.com/mail/