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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ae395e5c11de7bc9
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: segfault with large-ish array with GNAT
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:24:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <Xns9D40A6E94CDD6WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
References: <Xns9D40600D64CB9SnarkCharmedImSure@188.40.43.245>
 <ho0c5p$r8$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:24:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="9f8M0iN5t54V+4DF/iqO8g";
	logging-data="27488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qBc/2q5lbkD/9NEafd+YQXQt3uhHGg30="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face: 
 &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2IHhwR6fB0huMlGsCwnm7R3VFAw=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10644
Date: 2010-03-19T20:24:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

 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