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,b7566e485e23e171 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Mandatory stack check (was: Changing discriminants...) Date: 1996/08/08 Message-ID: <3209AC29.3E21@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172922845 references: content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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"