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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,64ff9ad5eeabedcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Objects
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <dewar.797262539@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070415
references: <3lh61g$1hu@news.kreonet.re.kr> <3ls78u$nr3@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <3m13mo$6b9@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Under what conditions does GNAT implicitly allocate from the heap"


Very few, we consider implicit heap allocations to be a bad thing. Here is
the complete list:

  1.  When a task is created, its dynamic storage is allocated from the heap

  2.  When the secondary stack for the main task has to be expanded, we
	get space from the heap (we will probably restrict this in a 
	future version).

  3.  At the start of execution, we use malloc to allocate space for
	dynamically sized global objects.