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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why can't objects be static in Ada?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:02:26 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <q8r1ti$3c9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <b411a770-5e86-4d5e-9e43-e52843be724d@googlegroups.com>
 <q8og92$1u7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <f572578d-1e73-4b20-b2be-e5b80a8d95b3@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:02:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="3465"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56123
Date: 2019-04-12T17:02:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Mark Lorenzen" <mark.lorenzen@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f572578d-1e73-4b20-b2be-e5b80a8d95b3@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 12:49:07 AM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>
>> fix this. There's no good reason (outside of Annex E issues) for 
>> declaring
>> any package preelaborated, unless you like fighting errors a lot. C.4 is 
>> a
>> load of hooey, it's not actually implementable on the margins, and 
>> there's
>> no reason for any compiler to generate more code than necessary. Ergo,
>> you'll most likely get the same code whether or not you declare something
>> Preelaborated, so why bother with all of the hassles?
>
> For certification purposes, I think there is a value in avoiding 
> elaboration code.
>
> http://docs.adacore.com/live/wave/gnat_ugx/html/gnat_ugx/gnat_ugx/support_for_certified_systems.html#avoiding-elaboration-code
>
> I had the need to deal with it myself though.

Surely there are lots of requirements that the language cannot deal with; 
anything having to do with the actual code generated belongs to the 
implementation and not to the language. A language standard can't say 
anything useful about the generated code, because of the need to work in a 
wide variety of environments.

                               Randy.