From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Mandatory stack check (was: Changing discriminants...)
Date: 1996/08/08
Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3209AC29.3E21@lmtas.lmco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.839449016@schonberg
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> This is not a matter of a check that is off by default, it is a matter of
> an unimplemented check. In implementations of GNAT which support stack
> checking, stack checking is always turned on, and in fact cannot be turned
> off at all (since it has essentially no overhead, there is no point in letting
> it be turned off).
Interesting. Does stack checking typically introduce an extra branch in the
object code? If so, then someone with a requirement to test every object-code
branch point would have to introduce a test to force a stack overflow for each
affected code segment (including elaboration), or have to justify why the
overflow check didn't need to be tested. That could be a little annoying...
--
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-08-08 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-08-07 0:00 Changing discriminants at run-time: erroneous execution? Andre Spiegel
1996-08-07 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-08-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-08 0:00 ` Ken Garlington [this message]
1996-08-08 0:00 ` Mandatory stack check (was: Changing discriminants...) Robert A Duff
1996-08-12 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-08-13 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-08-14 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-08-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-07 0:00 ` Changing discriminants at run-time: erroneous execution? Robert Dewar
1996-08-08 0:00 ` Andre Spiegel
1996-08-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox