Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:17:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: python and HUGE_STACK_SIZE Message-ID: <4BAD4078.6000300@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <B473412B-0083-476C-A4F1-413158BBB639@exit2shell.com> References: <4702BA39-7C18-45C3-9920-9E460502B58F@freebsd.org> <4BAA9C32.6040606@delphij.net> <2D129848-8A41-4BB5-A58C-A9A35D5FBD9A@mac.com> <6201873e1003242207m49351c55id94341d872fd8e17@mail.gmail.com> <B473412B-0083-476C-A4F1-413158BBB639@exit2shell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/26/10 14:03, Steven Kreuzer wrote: > So, it seems like most of the time python scripts will work with HUGE_STACK_SIZE > turned off, but every once and a while some scripts will fail in non obvious ways > that could leave a person scratching their head for weeks trying to get to the bottom of it > > To me, it seems like the best behavior would be to default to compiling with that set. I'll create > a patch over the weekend and open a PR >From the discussion (not speaking from experience or python knowledge) it seems like an OPTION is the way to go, with the open question being defaults to on or defaults to off. What is the impact of HUGE_STACK_SIZE when it's compiled in, and how will it affect those running python stuff who don't actually need it? If it turns out that only a few ports need it and the impact is undesirable those ports that do need it could be adapted to test for it somehow and suggest that the user re-install python with the option. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BAD4078.6000300>