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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28b389d4503cb555
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: generic package dilemma
Date: 1999/12/03
Message-ID: <wccln7cc9dw.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 556236797
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <80u48b$ghr$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <3832e27f_1@news1.prserv.net>
 <3832E75D.5B1BA719@mail.com> <383319e8_4@news1.prserv.net>
 <3833F615.5AD7166C@mail.com> <383442e1_1@news1.prserv.net>
 <383510EA.9DFEE8B6@mail.com> <383569db_2@news1.prserv.net>
 <3835CF7A.5604C6A3@mail.com> <81bt4v$7cr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <wcczow6flxa.fsf@world.std.com> <81cru4$url$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <wccaenu9vp0.fsf@world.std.com> <38464A8F.FDE762F9@mail.com>
 <828mu3$8i0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

> The difficulty is that it is probably not practical to mandate
> this kind of program wide analysis as a standard feature of
> all compilers.

I agree that the full program-wide analysis is a bad idea, for all the
reasons you stated.

What do you think of this compromise: Do the call-graph analysis within
each package at compile time, except do the call-graph analysis for each
cycle at link time.  (The compiler would have to know about the cycles
somehow.)

The point is that cycles are inherently tightly coupled anyway, so it's
not such a horrible thing for two packages to know about each others'
bodies.  The other point is that cycles are not common, and are usually
small (length 2, often), so the link-time efficiency problem is probably
not so bad.

- Bob