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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea99a8822847633f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dvdeug@x8b4e516e.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)
Subject: Re: stack frame too large
Date: 2000/11/11
Message-ID: <8uiekl$aik2@news.cis.okstate.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 692799463
References: <3A0C9FB8.9EBC9A7F@pacbell.net>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux)
Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-11-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:24:08 -0800, wayne lydecker wrote:
>I have been able to distill the error down to a very fundamental
>set of code.  If I call a procedure that calls a function to
>return an array of 2000 integers, I get the error.  1000
>integers works fine.  If anyone can shed light on this unusual
>problem, I would be most grateful.  I compile it with:

It seems clear to me - the compilers don't like trying to pass
that large an item by stack. Your best bet is probably to
allocate memory on the heap and pass a pointer.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http://dvdeug.dhis.org
As centuries of pulp novels and late-night Christian broadcasting have taught 
us, anything we don't understand can be used for the purposes of Evil.
	-- Kenneth Hite, Suppressed Transmissions