From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 17 19:27:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B1D150CF for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:27:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id TAA18698; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:27:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:27:11 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200001180327.TAA18698@apollo.backplane.com> To: Iani Brankov Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason Evans Subject: Re: The stack size for a process? References: <200001180055.TAA17507@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <3883D1BB.391C9F0C@bulinfo.net> <20000117183902.B27689@sturm.canonware.com> <3883D60A.BA0BAF37@bulinfo.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message