Re: segfault with large-ish array with GNAT

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:bce19c00-0599-4ff6-a5cf-16bb3d742373
@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

> Warren wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> Imagine
>> a CPU that somehow in microcode was able to do a fast-malloc
>> of a stack frame (as part of a call), linking the new
>> frame back to the calling frame. Then you could eliminate
>> the need for a "linear virtual stack region" altogether. This
>> would allow code to freely fork into many parallel
>> threads without the issue of pre-allocating stack [address]
>> space to each new thread. When the called procedure executed
>> a "return", it would (in microcode) free the current stack
>> frame and return to the prior one. �The "call" allocate/free's
>> could be constrained to one general "stack heap".
> 
> I wonder how that would work with processors that have register
> windows specifically to reduce the need for a memory-based stack (i.e.
> SPARC, IA64 and maybe others).
> 
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

I'm not sure I follow, but objects like small buffers would
presumably still occupy the current stack frame.

Warren