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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df40d0d1975a16a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-14 03:45:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Optimizing Boundary Checks Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <20030613140324.0000372e._elh_@_terma_._com_> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1055587522 13803 129.241.83.78 (14 Jun 2003 10:45:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:45:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39167 Date: 2003-06-14T10:45:22+00:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > Preben Randhol wrote: > >>Vinzent Hoefler wrote: >>> >>> I guess, you are refering to >>>? >> >>No to: >> >> > > Yes, of course, I meant that. The posting I mentioned was your answer > to this. The classical off-by-one error, I'd say. ;-) But still I'm a bit confused. The original poster was he right or did he have to use type ... in stead of subtype to get the boundary checks optimized out? Sorry to reitterate my qeustions, just want to understand this 100% :-) -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/