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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e5eb8ca5dcea2827
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism
Date: 1999/06/08
Message-ID: <1999Jun8.151014.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 487193175
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net> <7i17gj$1u1k@news2.newsguy.com>
 <t7lneeqlzf.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <7icgkg$k4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <t7g14mqe7b.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <3749E9EC.2842436A@aasaa.ofe.org>
 <7id2eo$fag@drn.newsguy.com> <3749FF7D.F17CE16A@aasaa.ofe.org>
 <umq4sl1h66q.fsf@maestro.clustra.com> <374AC676.F7AE0772@lmco.com>
 <t7iu9hrqpw.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <7ieuja$5v9@news1.newsguy.com>
 <t7675gswiv.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <7ifd6l$bmf@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>
 <t7zp2sr6yf.fsf@calumny.jyacc.c <t7emjmmx8w.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 928869020 19124 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: Digital Equipment Computer User's Society
Followup-To: <t7emjmmx8w.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Organization: LJK Software
Lines: 25

In article <t7emjmmx8w.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>, Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> writes:
> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes:
>> On 07 Jun 1999 15:26:52 -0400, Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> wrote:
>> However, the declaration
>>   declare
>>     S : String := Func_Return_String;
>>   begin
>> is perfectly legal, and so is the declaration
>>   declare
>>     O : T'Class := Func_Return_T_Tic_Class;
>>   begin
>> In neither case is heap required.
> 
> And despite that, you said before that the size of O is determined
> at run-time, not at compile-time. Also, I looked at some of the code
> generated by GNAT, and saw references to a secondary_stack_allocate
> (or something like that) function. So the storage for S and O is
> allocated somewhere, but it's on the stack? Is this something like
> alloca?

The fact that GNAT allocates it in one place does not mean all compilers
will do it in the same place.  Is your question specifically "how does
GNAT do this ?" ?

Larry Kilgallen