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=ham
	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
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: segfault with large-ish array with GNAT
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bce19c00-0599-4ff6-a5cf-16bb3d742373@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <642ddf8b-1d45-4f74-83ad-2c755040ca33@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
	<cf178987-c893-4e93-83b7-c86b6aeeac48@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<4ba13454$0$6720$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <ac4bed10-f655-4fa5-8891-2967ba4388a0@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<Xns9D3F84CEB288DWarrensBlatherings@85.214.113.135>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1268987487 2390 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2010 08:31:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:31:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
	Gecko/20100202 Firefox/3.5.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10633
Date: 2010-03-19T01:31:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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. =A0The "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.