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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.182.230.168 with SMTP id sz8mr801369obc.9.1383305292431;
 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 04:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.226.231 with SMTP id rv7mr19211obc.21.1383305292382;
 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 04:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o2no13647052qas.0!news-out.google.com!9ni3696qaf.0!nntp.google.com!o2no13647040qas.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 04:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <79199f0f-7392-4509-9ada-2e3ef2920a83@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=150.101.201.124;
 posting-account=pBdvJAoAAAAbTiQ-L1tpxD99i_UttsrJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.101.201.124
References: <d843d1e1-a1ea-4818-b23d-aff833be2186@googlegroups.com>
 <79199f0f-7392-4509-9ada-2e3ef2920a83@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b471e71a-ec5f-4bc6-83ba-d37c0ca918d3@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT: Why does a large 'new' allocation blow the stack when an
 initialiser is present ?
From: Rod Kay <rodakay@internode.on.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:28:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183773
Date: 2013-11-01T04:28:12-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, 1 November 2013 21:19:01 UTC+11, sbelm...@gmail.com  wrote:
>=20
> Don't necessarily assume they are on the heap.  Allocators of anonymous a=
ccess types work differently than those of named types.  They are (or at le=
ast can be) put on the stack instead of the heap, since they are (or at lea=
st can be) reclaimed when the subprogram ends (13.11~25/2).
>=20

   Ah, thanks for the info, I was not aware of this.

   I changed the test code to use a named access type, tho it hasn't appear=
ed to change the result.


   type        Integer_array is array (Integer range <>) of Integer;
   type access_Integer_array is access Integer_array;
  =20
   the_Array_1 : access_Integer_array=20
      :=3D new Integer_array  (1 .. 10_000_000);         -- Fine.

   the_Array_2 : access_Integer_array
      :=3D new Integer_array' (1 .. 10_000_000 =3D> 5);    -- Stack overflo=
w.