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: 103376,19924f2facf8443
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Larger matrices
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <c51a3892-b115-4d3c-ae0b-a3511578e57b@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
References: <40ed91c2-3dab-4994-9a7b-4032058f0671@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
	<4899b545$0$20713$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <96f76821-fc2a-4ec1-83e7-b7b9a5be0520@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	<9cabee20-877a-4fdc-80f8-7746879331da@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
	<Iimmk.286508$yE1.119629@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.214.52.235
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218049948 32526 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2008 19:12:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:12:28 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.214.52.235;
	posting-account=3cDqWgoAAAAZXc8D3pDqwa77IryJ2nnY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1;
	.NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR
	1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1473
Date: 2008-08-06T12:12:28-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Probably the operation declares a result object on the stack, which causes the
> stack overflow. GNAT is pretty good about not passing large objects by copy.

Yes, I inspected a little, the "*" function is entered well, it's the
BLAS/LAPACK call that explodes.

> You may need to create your own operations that use the heap rather than the stack.

Because nobody did this yet?
Increase the stack size?