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: 103376,6c7dea22b75ba442
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada compiler?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:26:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1195035988.599522.87580@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
References: <TYbZi.77377$kj1.12383@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <QPednZmRA_Te8KjanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>
   <IooZi.12685$if6.3756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <uklh05-6gt.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
   <lvsZi.13247$if6.1368@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <1194747665.6151.31.camel@K72>
   <_evZi.177931$Xa3.50640@attbi_s22>
   <87hcjq46t4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <yger6ite2fu.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
   <473abc9d$0$13104$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.58.34.227
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1195035988 15054 127.0.0.1 (14 Nov 2007 10:26:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:26:28 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <473abc9d$0$13104$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 SEVPXS01
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.58.34.227;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18365
Date: 2007-11-14T02:26:28-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > I can only remember a _warning_ about a too big stack frame; not a
> > plain compilation error.  Are you sure programs actually don't compile
> > because of too big stack frames in some cases?

You are correct; it is only a warning. However, if one subprogram has
"unreliable" (whatever that means) stack checking, then the entire
program has "unreliable" stack checking and I'm not sure it is a good
idea to turn that on by default. Also, if a stack overflow results in
a SEGV (instead of Storage_Error), I don't clearly see the functional
difference i.e. the stack overflow gets caught either way. Unless of
course I'm missing something.

> The message says something to the effect that stack checking
> won't be reliable with large stack frames (where large seems
> to start at N_000 sized arrays, say).
>
> Also, -fstack-check is a GCC option, not GNAT-specific.

Yes and as with all -f options in GCC, one can explicitly turn it off
with -fno-stack-check.

> Maybe some
> new technology is built into GCC (speculation); as always, most
> GCC technologists get inspiration from the Pascal branch of
> languages--later.

Agreed.

--
Ludovic Brenta.