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: 103376,6c7dea22b75ba442
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,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: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada compiler?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:00:53 +0100
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <yger6ite2fu.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
References: <TYbZi.77377$kj1.12383@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<QPednZmRA_Te8KjanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>
	<IooZi.12685$if6.3756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<uklh05-6gt.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
	<lvsZi.13247$if6.1368@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<1194747665.6151.31.camel@K72> <_evZi.177931$Xa3.50640@attbi_s22>
	<87hcjq46t4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: taasingegade.news.jacob-sparre.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1195023682 4688 85.82.239.166 (14 Nov 2007 07:01:22
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WcCqeUhWR3uo2IJ18ZusWyLM8Uc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18355
Date: 2007-11-14T08:00:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> Georg Bauhaus wrote:

>>> Wouldn't this be even more evidence in favor of having -gnato
>>> -fstack-check on by default?

> I'm starting to consider such a change for Debian gnat.  Overflow
> checks can be disabled explicitly with -gnatp or pragma Suppress.
> However, some programs don't compile with -fstack-check because some
> stack frames are "too big" (whatever that means).  Thoughts?

Would it be too big a change to add a new option to negate a default
"-fstack-check"?

I can only remember a _warning_ about a too big stack frame; not a
plain compilation error.  Are you sure programs actually don't compile
because of too big stack frames in some cases?

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"It ain't rocket science!"