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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5117b1b6391a0e06
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!0f19ed38!not-for-mail
From: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <dRZzc.40593$G%.26441@tornado.fastwebnet.it>
 <as_zc.37108$Xw3.21935@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <1087410710.477506@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <fd2dndsj1oy3aUTdRVn-vA@megapath.net>
 <riCCc.2700$A9.1045@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <opr93v80kw5afhvo@localhost>
 <KZedneo665VD3EbdRVn-uA@megapath.net>
 <8yXCc.548$Av3.500@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <cbhq5o$bne$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: A simple ADA puzzle (I haven't the answer)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <BY_Cc.1439$aJ3.354@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:23:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.203.234
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1088191393 151.203.203.234 (Fri,
 25 Jun 2004 15:23:13 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:23:13 EDT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1898
Date: 2004-06-25T19:23:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Bob Spooner" <rls19@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:cbhq5o$bne$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> There is another case that isn't being considered here. When doing
real-time
> programming, I consider implicit use of the heap a _bad thing_ because the
> amout of time it takes to do the allocation is not deterministic.

Would you consider it acceptable if implicit allocation could be controlled
by a pragma and / or compiler option? A compiler with such a pragma / option
would give us the best of both worlds, allowing the programmer to either
allow the compiler to choose the best option or to make that choice
herself/himself.

> If I want
> something to be allocated on the heap, I will say so explicitly. I do not
> want a compiler that silently does something I didn't ask for.

I am quite sympathetic to that point of view. The problem, as indicated in
my previous post, is that for some types, the choice of whether one wants to
use the stack for these object is platform-specific. How does one code such
types in a  portable way without allowing the compiler to choose the memory
allocation strategy? As noted before, pragmas and / or compiler options
could be used to override the compiler's default choice. Is there a downside
to this scheme? Is there an alternative scheme that would provide us with as
much portability?