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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:02:49 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d52ee47$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <e1076cab-2a7e-4762-acf4-80bf807614bf@n16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5306a0$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <76c123ab-7425-44d8-b26d-b2b41a9aa42b@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5310ab$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <9bff52ca-6213-41da-8fa4-3a4cdd8086d3@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5315c8$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <159dca70-2103-46d7-beb2-c7754d30fe36@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <4d53222d$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <bc7802fb-0184-437b-b0fa-9ba0ff260c04@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <4d540714$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <e491f5ad-ae17-42fd-9412-f457d32ac217@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5423b9$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <867afa64-090f-48bf-93a3-54ec23b51381@f18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4d555f9a$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <4d558562$0$7651$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
In-Reply-To: <4d558562$0$7651$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d5587e1$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 96bf1e85.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=[LPMTE_bcZJ40R`ma;kZ:A^oXGM_6\KV@mX0AG3X_jUOWonLZPGF:dMVjKk:Lk^BNAcR12TN^Bg7NL=<PNCjPL;AOb:Tjk=RUdD
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17250
Date: 2011-02-11T14:02:49-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/11/2011 1:52 PM, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Just allocating arrays without thinking about heap or stack
> is not a mistake, I'd think!  Even if several versions of GNAT
> seem to have this quality of implementation issue. On the other
> hand, there may be good reasons to manually control memory
> allocation choices, but they seem to be rather technical.
> It is sad that they should become idiomatic just because
> some at AdaCore favor using pointers for larger objects.

I suppose this will expose me for the old fogey I am, but in my
day, we were uncomfortable with the notion that a compiler would
choose to do heap allocation when this was not manifest in the
code. In C, you declare large static arrays, small automatic ones,
and arbitrary heap ones, and everyone can see what's going on.