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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c319c681003d3e4c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-17 20:52:21 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Static in 9X
Date: 16 Sep 1994 23:13:59 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <35dmtn$3ub@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <940916030323_73672.2025_DHR67-3@CompuServe.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-09-16T23:13:59-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Our vendor decides whether or not to put objects in ROM via the definition of
static (in part). We're trying to get better performance in this area for
composite objects."

Have a little chat with your vendor. We are talking 9X here right? It is
clear that preelaborability should be the issue (see the systems
programming annexe). Whether something is static should have nothing
whatever to do with whether things are static.