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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_How_to_get_Ada_to_=e2=80=9ccross_the_chasm=e2=80=9d?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=3f?=
Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 01:32:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <pcleu0$cjp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com>
 <878t9nemrl.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <d64089d4-af9d-43d9-b72b-a73d3fff1f00@googlegroups.com>
 <bf8f8498-f017-47dd-bf1f-188c7ceb5b28@googlegroups.com>
 <ed222259-b860-41a1-82ad-62f93d941faf@googlegroups.com>
 <fl3pbpF73fsU1@mid.individual.net>
 <r0bqedllrrbsihtoplg5qccap3ljc4rikl@4ax.com> <lya7tezfty.fsf@pushface.org>
 <87h8nl50rw.fsf@nightsong.com> <fl6i3lFprddU1@mid.individual.net>
 <87d0y97lda.fsf@nightsong.com>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@notmyhomepage.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 23:32:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b629b9135d095756ff1fe6a481d71bd6";
	logging-data="12921"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++y12A9KDbQ1nbzcKNbF+bC8SGYRI6+II="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
In-Reply-To: <87d0y97lda.fsf@nightsong.com>
Content-Language: de-DE
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XyjR71WF00rujXDZnY/VTA428pI=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52022
Date: 2018-05-06T01:32:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06.05.18 01:06, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
>> One reason is that when a function evaluates an expression that
>> creates an object of a large, dynamic size (eg. an array expression)
>> on the secondary stack, this object can be returned /in situ/ as the
>> function's return value, without being copied.
> 
> Ok, but that pattern is so common that allocating the space in the
> primary stack before calling the function is a standard optimization
> that every serious C++ compiler knows how to do.  Then the function
> writes the result into the primary stack and the caller can still use it
> after the function returns.  Could Ada not do it the same way?

Does C++ have objects, not allocated via *new*, whose size in bytes will
be known only at run time?