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: 103376,7767a311e01e1cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s21.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org>
Organization: jrcarter at acm dot org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT compiler switches and optimization
References: <1161341264.471057.252750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <9Qb_g.111857$aJ.65708@attbi_s21>
   <434o04-7g7.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>   <4539ce34$1_2@news.bluewin.ch>
   <nrup04-5hj.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>   <453A532F.2070709@obry.net>
   <9kfq04-sgm.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
   <sj3r04-rlv.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
   <OeF_g.1031657$084.91539@attbi_s22>
 <1161517716.455743.223200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1161517716.455743.223200@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <toQ_g.114217$aJ.99970@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s21 1161548441 12.201.97.213 (Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:20:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:20:41 GMT
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:20:41 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7141
Date: 2006-10-22T20:20:41+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tkrauss wrote:
> 
> Anyway, using the latest code from Jeffrey Creem it looks like the
> execution time (on my machine)  has been cut in half (9 seconds) .  The
> threaded version runs in nearly the same time for smaller problems but
> dies with a stack overflow for larger.  I see a comment in the Bugzilla
> recommending a similar construct
>                      type Real_Matrix is array (1 .. N, 1 .. N) of
> Float;
> That takes the memory from the stack rather than the heap though, no?
> I assume there is a compiler switch to increase the stack size so the
> code wouldn't die, but is that the "normal" way of allocating
> memory?  I'm trying to not look like _too_ much of an Ada neophyte :)

With GNAT, at least, they're allocated on the stack. AFAIKT, the 
language doesn't require that, but it's a common approach. The main 
stack size is probably an OS thing.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
11