Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:27:11 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Iani Brankov <ian@bulinfo.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Subject: Re: The stack size for a process? Message-ID: <200001180327.TAA18698@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200001180055.TAA17507@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <3883D1BB.391C9F0C@bulinfo.net> <20000117183902.B27689@sturm.canonware.com> <3883D60A.BA0BAF37@bulinfo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Jason Evans wrote:
:
:[snip]
:
:>
:> 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.
:>
:
:Thank you very much!
:That explains everything.
:
:The problem's in my tv set (as we say here) and I'll fix the picture
::)
:
:--iani
Heh heh. I have a feeling that we're going to see more of these sorts
of problems crop up (over-extending stacks, making assumptions about
compiler optimizations) as more and more people try to do threads
programming and fewer and fewer of them have the small-systems
background to realize that there are in fact stack and compiler
optimization issuesl
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?200001180327.TAA18698>