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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b3ebf057333800c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Largest size array in Gnat 2005 for the PC?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:48:45 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1193780925.196642.17450@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <13idb3jbm28kfbe@corp.supernews.com>
   <1193737660.539205.271270@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
   <1193772402.13888.130.camel@kartoffel>
   <1193775877.289991.52560@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
   <1193780421.3259.46.camel@kartoffel>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1193780928 14285 127.0.0.1 (30 Oct 2007 21:48:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1193780421.3259.46.camel@kartoffel>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2658
Date: 2007-10-30T14:48:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 30, 2:40 pm, Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauh...@maps.futureapps.de>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:24 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 12:26 pm, Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh
> > > Is there a bug in the following program or maybe I'm just dense?
>
> > EAX is a 32-bit register, right?
>
> Yes, i686 Linux in this case. When I ask the compiler for
> 64bit code, then I see occurrences of $280375465082880,
> which is 2**48 - 2**40.
>
> > So to assign into the first element of Fst, the offset from the
> > beginning of the array is 0; to assign into the last element, the
> > offset will be (2**48 - 2**40) which is 255 * 2**40, which is way too
> > big to fit into a 32-bit register, so apparently the compiler is
> > truncating to 0 before setting EAX.
>
> Ah, yes. Could exceeding size have produced the -1 in
>  -1(%ebp,%eax), %eax
> too? It is
>  -10002(%ebp,%eax), %eax
> for the "normal size" array of 10_000 elements?

Your array is 10_001 elements, actually.  I haven't studied code
produced by GNAT very much, but -1 just looks like the starting point
for where things are allocated (downward) from the current stack frame
pointer (EBP); exceeding size would have produced -1 in that if the
compiler truncates the array size and thinks the size is 0, then the
resulting offset would have been -1.  I'll bet that if you declared an
array of one byte, you would have seen -2(%ebp,%eax); if it were two
bytes, -3(%ebp,%eax), and so on.  I'm just speculating, though... I
haven't tried this myself.

                       -- Adam