From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rod Kay <rodakay5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why don't all initialising assignments use 'build-in-place' ?
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:10:33 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <tvok46$2ij9m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tvc6j9$3gfe$1@dont-email.me> <tvmbvj$2417c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 05:10:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d94c0ebe916b2402e359aa2b7beb2a0";
	logging-data="2706742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UCImV95r+7FyE5yE+W05fheYHnU4Hbws="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z+hNB9u4k3AebGMCbma3ht762kg=
In-Reply-To: <tvmbvj$2417c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65021
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 25/3/23 19:39, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Rod Kay" <rodakay5@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tvc6j9$3gfe$1@dont-email.me...
>> Hello again,
>>
>>     I'm sure there must be a good reason. All I can think of is that it may
>> somehow break backwards compatibility wrt controlled types (a vague stab
>> in the dark).
>>
>>     Any thoughts ?
> 
> (1) Didn't want to make work for implementers.
> (2) You shouldn't be able to tell (since it is required for all cases
> involved finalization). Finalization is the only way to inject user-defined
> code into the initialization process.
> (3) True build-in-place can be expensive and complex (especially for array
> types).
> (4) Build-in-place requires functions compiled to support it (must pass in
> the place to initialize into). That might not be the case (especially if a
> foreign convention is involved). Also see (3) - an implementation might have
> a cheaper way to return some types that doesn't support build-in-place.
> 
> There's probably more, those are off the top of my head. If it is cheap, it
> would be silly for an implementation to do anything else. (Don't ask what
> Janus/Ada does. ;-) Otherwise, most people want the fastest possible code.
> 
>                         Randy.
> 
> 
> 

    Thanks, Randy. I somehow imagined that build-in-place would be 
faster :/.

    So using 'extended return' *everywhere* would decrease performance, 
I guess.


Cheers.