Re: segfault with large-ish array with GNAT

[Charmed Snark <snark@cogeco.ca>]

Maciej Sobczak expounded in news:6b9abbbd-2d5e-4e80-b353-fc4d1ccd2963
@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On 18 Mar, 18:03, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With the new focus on parallel cores etc., I've often pondered
>> what a future CPU without a stack might look like. Imagine
>> a CPU that somehow in microcode was able to do a fast-malloc
>> of a stack frame
> 
> There is no need to do that in microcode - the compiler decides what
> does it mean to call a subprogram and what does it mean to allocate
> the "frame", so you might simply have a compiler that implements these
> concepts in terms of a dynamically allocated linked list.

True enough..

> I vaguely remember reading about a C compiler that did exactly that a
> while ago - but I fail to find it in Google due to the noise from
> billions of tutorials with stacks and lists. :-)

Interesting. Do you recall the time frame?  Was it DOS era
or post Win95?

> Today you might find this idea implemented in just about any
> *interpreter*.
> Maciej Sobczak * www.inspirel.com

Even interpreters use stacks. A basic interpreter needs to
allocate a stack for each thread of control.  However, as
you say, it could be implemented differently as a linked
list of "frames".

Warren