[Bug ada/66162] Bug box compiling Ada.Finalization with -gnatc

["simon at pushface dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66162

--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> Why on Earth are you doing this?  No plan to look into it.

Because I agree with Randy Brukardt in
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.ada/ECJm5qlxZKA/RKXuEQWN4NYJ that
“[n]ot having bounded containers is pretty much like not having arrays”.

It’s quite possible to build the Ada 2012 Bounded Vectors & Hashed Maps (&
presumably other bounded containers) without finalization provided you’re
willing to hack out iterators and references, which is the way I’ve gone up to
now; but it seems a real shame not to go the whole hog.

People who want to write Ada for MCUs aren’t necessarily in the high-integrity
world; some would want to cram as much of the language as possible into the
RTS.
>From gcc-bugs-return-486469-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun May 17 11:49:28 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-486469-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14202 invoked by alias); 17 May 2015 11:49:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14174 invoked by uid 48); 17 May 2015 11:49:21 -0000
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 11:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66004-4-evg4jtYdtJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01309.txt.bz2
Content-length: 754

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf004

--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3)
> Something supposedly very good happened recently, because:
> r223225 18369501023
>
> I'll just have to find out what caused that 50% cut!  The test-case is
> unchanged.
> If the cause is related to inlining heuristics, I'll close this PR for sure.

Ignore that.  I misobserved the "nearby" test-case
26_numerics/random/poisson_distribution/operators/values.cc probably because
there was a test-run still in progress.  Still, that similar test-case indeed
seems to have lower initialization numbers.  Lesson learned: always
double-check your end-point observations before bisecting.