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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,707a256758168c49
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d9f70618a1f87853
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-05 01:32:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.ns.com (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AdaMULTI/Ada 95 for Bare Board
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:32:26 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3c848ff6.2022217@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <3C7CF687.15D36BBE@avionics.saab.se>
 <3C8356E5.28D0B600@icn.siemens.de> <3c83596e.9029553@news.demon.co.uk>
 <4519e058.0203041216.398c3e2@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1015320698 nnrp-01:1422 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.realtime:4968 comp.lang.ada:20803
Date: 2002-03-05T09:32:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 4 Mar 2002 12:16:20 -0800, dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
wrote:

>john.mccabe@emrad.ns.com (John McCabe) wrote in message news:<3c83596e.9029553@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> Watch out for allocation of huge stack areas for aggregate assignments
>> to arrays...
>>     My_Large_Array = (others => 0, others => 0, others => 0);
>> 
>> will attempt to allocate a 4MByte or so block of stack to create an
>> aggregate before copying it to the global variable (My_Large_Array).
>> Green Hills claim it is *required* by the RM, but certain people who
>> were involved in writing the manual disagree!
>
>(assuming you meant ":=")

Of course!! :-) (I don't use Ada very often now so mistakes like this
are quite likely to happen!)

>I believe this would be required in certian situations if the source
>for the data came from overlapping parts of the same object.

True, it may be necessary in some cases, but in this particular case
this was not the case :-}

>Perhaps
>the answer you got was vendor shorthand for "there are some situations
>where this would be required, and we don't want to do the work
>required to recognise those situations and do something different."
>:-)

No - the answer was "according to RMxxxx (can't remember the exact
reference) we are required to do that!".