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: 1999/06/09
Message-ID: <1999Jun9.070724.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 487454313
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 <375d9a3d.e1cccc63@averstar.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 928926447 2701 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: Digital Equipment Computer User's Society
Followup-To: <375d9a3d.e1cccc63@averstar.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Organization: LJK Software
Lines: 14

In article <375D9A3D.E1CCCC63@averstar.com>, Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> writes:

> Several compilers use what is called a "secondary stack" (or a "data stack"),
> as distinct from the "primary stack" (or "control stack").
> The secondary stack is generally managed in a mark/release manner.
> There is one per task.

So in such compilers, how does specification of task (stack) size
relate to the primary and/or secondary stack ?

Do any compilers that use this method also support unlimited (well,
at least unspecified) stack size for the main task ?  For both stacks ?

Larry Kilgallen