Hi Adrian, > The "bug" is in ghc stack management. Why is it so important that the > stack size is arbitrarily limited?
It's not, but it makes some things easier and faster. A better question is why is it important for the stack to grow dynamically. The answer is that its not. > It's just an intermediate data > structure, no different from any other intermediate data structure > you may build on the heap (well apart from it's efficiency). But I guess > we would be in danger of having our programs run too fast if folk were > silly enough to make use of the stack. In C putting something on the stack is massively more efficient than putting it on the heap. In Haskell, there is nearly no difference, and I can imagine some situations where the heap is actually faster. I guess your comment about speed relates to that assumption? > So perhaps the current ghc defaults are too generous. What limit do you > think should be placed on the stack size that a non buggy program can > use? The current limits are fine for virtually all cases. They abort on buggy programs, but its rare that a non-buggy program will need to change them. i.e. years of experience has ended up with good defaults. Thanks Neil _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe