Re: reasons for segmentation faults on linux

[David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu>]

On 28 Nov 2001 19:39:01 -0800, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> This is misleading. Stack checking is off in gcc by default
> (and gnat always follows general gcc decisions on defaults
> for gcc switches, since it would get very confusing if the
> defaults were language dependent. If you turn on the switch, you get
> stack checking, nothing "infeasible"
> about it.

GCC didn't check array accesses by default when GNAT was created. (It
now can do so for Fortran, but doesn't by default, and does for Java.)
Why does GNAT check for array accesses? Stack checking seems more of a
language thing than a general gcc decision.

Why is there GNAT_STACK_LIMIT? If it were feasible to do it cleanly,
then why doesn't GNAT do it that way instead of requiring an additional
enivromental variable?

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each 
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less."
- "Disciple", Stuart Davis