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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e7e108bbafde0f02
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Constraint or what?
Date: 2000/02/13
Message-ID: <886frk$qla$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 585250400
References: <38A2A395.FD028B73@alcatel.be> <38A2A395.FD028B73@alcatel.be>
 <o7Po4.101$m35.5175@typhoon.we.mediaone.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 13 14:41:56 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-02-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <o7Po4.101$m35.5175@typhoon.we.mediaone.net>,
  Pascal Martin <pascal.martin@iname.com.nospam> wrote:
> Another well known effect is stack overflow, because the VADS
> compiler tends to reserve the maximum size if a static
> constraint is not used, even for local variables.

This is not a valid implementation for arrays. There was an
explicit ACVC challenege from a compiler that did this and
blew up on one of the tests, and the protest was rejected.
Compilers should not allocate maximum space for variable
length arrays.

Now it is reasonable to do this for very small arrays for
some definition of very small, but to cause stack overflow
from this approach seems quite definitely a bug to me.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.