From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a1d:: with SMTP id f29mr4063980qtb.200.1625312105946;
        Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6d02:: with SMTP id i2mr5083467ybc.309.1625312105695;
 Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!fdc2.netnews.com!fdcspool6.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 04:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58bbf3ca-6252-4543-a50e-0483181d1b37n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=95.238.131.152; posting-account=JRF_-woAAABYlsAtkCl_CUxBuQy2SsaQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 95.238.131.152
References: <69a59fdc-72bb-4202-99fc-d776530de653n@googlegroups.com>
 <sbftm5$1gn$1@dont-email.me> <d7a1a0ef-6789-4fc0-b9b3-c28411b4a8c4n@googlegroups.com>
 <58bbf3ca-6252-4543-a50e-0483181d1b37n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <18affa36-2083-40dd-898e-4f1d51cfc7bcn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: calling function but ignoring results
From: Gabriele Galeotti <gabriele.galeotti.xyz@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:35:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1950
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62325
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:32:24 AM UTC+2, amado...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 19:07:43 UTC+1, Gabriele Galeotti wrote: 
> > But sometimes it is necessary... 
> 
> Yes, but the frequency is too low to justify yet another feature of the language, IMO.

Well, I agree it's ok to keep a rigid language semantics. The price to pay is then
accept some kind of warning (that add noise), or write the offending code
in an ad-hoc machine language fragment (which add further noise).
To be honest, I see this kind of feature as a "normal" pragma to the underlying
optimizer/linker/etc. Unfortunately, the H/W world is often far from perfect.