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-Thread: 103376,6c7dea22b75ba442
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.in2p3.fr!in2p3.fr!news.ecp.fr!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!81.171.88.9.MISMATCH!ramfeed2.eweka.nl!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:15:09 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada compiler?
References: <TYbZi.77377$kj1.12383@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<QPednZmRA_Te8KjanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>
	<IooZi.12685$if6.3756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<uklh05-6gt.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
	<lvsZi.13247$if6.1368@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<1194747665.6151.31.camel@K72>
 <_evZi.177931$Xa3.50640@attbi_s22>	<87hcjq46t4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <yger6ite2fu.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
In-Reply-To: <yger6ite2fu.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <473abc9d$0$13104$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Nov 2007 10:15:10 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0261c065.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=873R9ZfK91SHigV@eW57PQA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ4nDHegD_]RUgBAFKgP:MaTA:ho7QcPOVSRa?S`WoAkBSIgJI]n=0RCU
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18359
Date: 2007-11-14T10:15:10+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:

> I can only remember a _warning_ about a too big stack frame; not a
> plain compilation error.  Are you sure programs actually don't compile
> because of too big stack frames in some cases?

The message says something to the effect that stack checking
won't be reliable with large stack frames (where large seems
to start at N_000 sized arrays, say).

Also, -fstack-check is a GCC option, not GNAT-specific. Maybe some
new technology is built into GCC (speculation); as always, most
GCC technologists get inspiration from the Pascal branch of
languages--later.