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: 103376,64ff9ad5eeabedcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: HUMPHREY@ASD1.JSC.NASA.GOV (HUMPHREY_TERRY)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Objects
Date: 1995/04/06
Message-ID: <3m13mo$6b9@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100939400
distribution: world
x-news-reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
references: <3lh61g$1hu@news.kreonet.re.kr> <3ls78u$nr3@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
organization: NASA/JSC
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <3ls78u$nr3@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu writes:

> GNAT allocates the maximum size for unconstrained variant records. We
> consider this the preferable implementation, since hidden use of the3
> heap seems intolerable.
> 

Does this mean that GNAT does not implicitly allocated from the heap
under any circumstances?  If the answer is no, then under what circumstances
does GNAT implicitly allocate from the heap?

Thanks in advance,
Terry Humphrey