mnicolet wrote (in a message from Tuesday 8)
May be this question is not strictly suited to this list, but I see lots of
people contributing from lots of different platforms.
The question regards to stack space management under different platforms, or
execution models.
Under my preferred
- Original Message -
From: Matthieu Herrb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: stack size
mnicolet wrote (in a message from Tuesday 8)
May be this question is not strictly suited to this list, but I see
lots of
people
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:13:06 -0300, mnicolet wrote:
Thank you.
You answered me what I was expecting: no system allows for a true or full
dynamic stack size.
If that's your interpretation, then I'm not sure what you mean by a full
dynamic stack size. All the operating systems he mentioned
, the stack would be dynamically allocated as required.
Than you again
- Original Message -
From: Tim Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: stack size
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:13:06 -0300, mnicolet wrote:
Thank you.
You
Tim Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:13:06 -0300, mnicolet wrote:
So, my true question comes into scene.
The people who ported XFree86 to QNX 4.x setted the stack size hint to the
Watcom linker to 4 Mb ( yes, 4 Mb ) for the server.
I am wondering why a so high figure.
I am wondering (1)
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:40:39 -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
Threaded applications on x86 usually have much smaller default stack
limits, averaging 64-128k, because all threads must share the same
address space, and a 4MB stack gives you a theoretical limit of only
1024 threads (assuming your kernel
