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: 103376,19924f2facf8443
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Larger matrices
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:02:39 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <g7dom8$4d6$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
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>
 <c51a3892-b115-4d3c-ae0b-a3511578e57b@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
 <afa48ae2-cee6-41d6-9390-5cd6b12bdfcf@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1218078216 4518 69.95.181.76 (7 Aug 2008 03:03:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:03:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1486
Date: 2008-08-06T22:02:39-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<amado.alves@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:afa48ae2-cee6-41d6-9390-5cd6b12bdfcf@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Upon failing miserably to convince GNAT to use a stack of 200M, I am
> currently working around the problem by writing my own matrix-by-
> vector multiplication function. It takes 2 seconds for a 5000 x 5000
> matrix, but it does not explode.
>
> I continue interested in ways to augment the stack size (or another
> way) to enable use of the standard library. Not so much for speed, but
> more for validation (GNAT passes ACATS right? Are ACATS for this
> library setup yet?)

No, no ACATS for this (or any of the new packages,  for that matter) yet. 
Since packages are relatively easy to implement correctly, I've been 
concentrating the new tests on the new features (like interfaces and null 
exclusions and limited returning functions) that it is much more likely to 
get wrong. I've also paid no attention at all to the non-manditory annexes. 
So that's two strikes on these packages.

If someone wants to submit ACATS-style tests for any of the new packages, 
they'd be much appreciated. (There surely needs to be at least some minimal 
tests just to ensure that they exist.)

                                    Randy.