Re: segfault with large-ish array with GNAT

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

 expounded in news:ho0c5p$r8$1@speranza.aioe.org:

> IIRC, the Burroughs 6500 had what they called a "cactus stack" where
> branching would occur for new threads.  

Looking up "cactus threads" reveals that it is also
known as a "spaghetti stack". Looking at the picture on 
wikipedia seems to suggest exactly what I envisioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_stack

> And there was a Texas Instruments
> microprocessor that had no real stack, but rather a set of registers
> that could be saved to RAM on a subroutine call.
> These preceded DOS.

Wasn't that the TMS9900?  It also had this neat X instruction,
that could execute one instruction pointed by another register,
but control returned to the instruction following the X instruction
itself. Effectively execute and return from an arbitrary instruction.
I'm not sure what happens if X invoked a "call" instruction of 
some sort.

Thanks for the lead on "cactus threads".

Warren