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,b7566e485e23e171
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Changing discriminants at run-time: erroneous execution?
Date: 1996/08/07
Message-ID: <dewar.839449016@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 172762893
references: <lhmg25z8v2x.fsf@berlin.berlin.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <DvrrwK.DBp@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iBob said

"So long as GNAT provides some way of turning on the checks, it is OK.
(I would prefer that all checks be on by default, but the ACT folks say
it's too inefficient.  In any case, the RM doesn't say anything about
that.)"

Wrong tree!

This is not a matter of a check that is off by default, it is a matter of
an unimplemented check. In implementations of GNAT which support stack
checking, stack checking is always turned on, and in fact cannot be turned
off at all (since it has essentially no overhead, there is no point in letting
it be turned off).