On Aug 19 14:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 19 07:43, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> > On 19/08/2013 7:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Aug 19 07:04, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> > >>So maybe emacs just had the incredibly bad luck to alloca() a large
> > >>buffer right at end-of-stack and then somehow
On Aug 19 07:43, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> On 19/08/2013 7:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 19 07:04, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> >>On 19/08/2013 6:49 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> >>>One thing I don't understand, though: shouldn't a stack overflow
> >>>normally manifest as a seg fault when trying to acc
On 19/08/2013 7:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 19 07:04, Ryan Johnson wrote:
On 19/08/2013 6:49 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
One thing I don't understand, though: shouldn't a stack overflow
normally manifest as a seg fault when trying to access the invalid
addresses, rather than silent memory
On Aug 19 07:04, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> On 19/08/2013 6:49 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> >One thing I don't understand, though: shouldn't a stack overflow
> >normally manifest as a seg fault when trying to access the invalid
> >addresses, rather than silent memory corruption?
That would be helpful.
>
ars to" because I'm waiting for Ryan to confirm
this.) The problem went away for me when I built emacs with
'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that
emacs needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on
64-bit Cygwin should be in
an to confirm
this.) The problem went away for me when I built emacs with
'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that
emacs needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on
64-bit Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
I noticed that u
an to confirm
this.) The problem went away for me when I built emacs with
'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that
emacs needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on
64-bit Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
I noticed that u
problem went away for me when I built emacs with
> 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that
> emacs needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on
> 64-bit Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
>
> I noticed that ulimi
r (fingers crossed!)
The problem went away for me when I built emacs with
'LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that emacs
needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on 64-bit
Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
I could easily ima
27;LDFLAGS=-Wl,--stack,4194304'. I'm wondering if it's just that emacs
needs an unusually big stack or if the default stack size on 64-bit
Cygwin should be increased for all applications.
I noticed that ulimit -s gives 2025 on both 32-bit Cygwin and 64-bit
Cygwin. Shouldn'
10 matches
Mail list logo
