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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,86f12c6cc81fafe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!noris.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: exception access violation
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <4s06i8FsekphU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1163446297.630444.280740@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
	 <4rtfa8FsioqkU1@mid.individual.net>
	 <1163532883.352177.211940@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
	 <4s06i8FsekphU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1163584330.6500.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:52:10 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 2006 11:49:28 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: c209777f.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=OVH]ob^IIB;nBOkdL^Lo7>McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1gUcjd<3m<;2ceNShYeeVg<PCY\c7>ejV8:Djn3kdmQQ<18=5njLil@9
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7470
Date: 2006-11-15T11:49:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 10:58 +0100, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:

> However, if you're managing large data structures (over 4MB in size), I'd go
> for a heap-based solution using controlled types. In my experience, abusing
> the stack is a source of headaches sooner or later (specially if you are
> doing something portable).

Why is using the heap + controlled for larger data structures
more portable than using the stack? I know that GNAT needs to
be talked into providing sufficient space on the stack.
You might be that running into this kind of stack trouble only
when you port from another compiler to GNAT?

Should the decision whether some object lives on the heap or on
the stack be based on compilers' support for dynamically sized 
local data structures?