Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:39:03 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Iani Brankov <ian@bulinfo.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Subject: Re: The stack size for a process? Message-ID: <20000117183902.B27689@sturm.canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <3883D1BB.391C9F0C@bulinfo.net>; from ian@bulinfo.net on Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:36:43AM %2B0200 References: <200001180055.TAA17507@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <3883D1BB.391C9F0C@bulinfo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:36:43AM +0200, Iani Brankov wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > after making world of a CURRENT cvsupped yesterday, one of my > > > applications stopped working because of a Segmentation fault. > > > > > > The C procedure where the problem pops has about 64k local variables. > > > here's the assembly output of the procedure's beginning: > > > > > > 0x805bb60 <transaction_read_objects>: pushl %ebp > > > 0x805bb61 <transaction_read_objects+1>: movl %esp,%ebp > > > 0x805bb63 <transaction_read_objects+3>: subl $0x1000c,%esp > > > 0x805bb69 <transaction_read_objects+9>: pushl %edi > > > > > > > > > The Segmentation fault happens when the process tries to push %edi in > > > the stack, which has been just decreased by 0x1000c. > > > > Are you using threads? > > > > Yes, it does. > Do all the threads in a process use the same stack segment in some > way? Thread stacks have a default size of 64kB. libc_r now uses growable stacks with "guard pages" between stacks to try to catch stack overflow. It looks like it did you some good. =) You will need to specify an alternate stack during thread creation to get around this size limit, or you can just use less stack space. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000117183902.B27689>