[Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2004-09-02 Thread Ron de Bruijn
I have an expression that gives a stack overflow in ghci (official Debian unstable CVS version)) when I evaluate it. The expression doesn't use more than 150MB of memory (I have more). How can I make sure the stack overflow doesn't happen? There are no strictness flags in my program. But I use DDa

[Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2007-10-17 Thread Maurí­cio
Hi, I get this error message when testing a function in ghci: *** Exception: stack overflow I admit I didn't care about efficiency when I wrote that function, but I'm almost sure it is not supposed to eat all my memory. Do I need to say something to ghci if I want it to use all available memor

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2004-09-02 Thread Tomasz Zielonka
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:47:51AM -0700, Ron de Bruijn wrote: > I heard of the +RTS option. I used: > ghci SomeModule.hs -someoptions +RTS -K150, but > this doesn't seem to have any effect. Try +RTS -K150M. -K150 means 150 bytes. Best regards, Tom -- .signature: Too many levels of

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2004-09-02 Thread Ron de Bruijn
--- Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:47:51AM -0700, Ron de > Bruijn wrote: > > I heard of the +RTS option. I used: > > ghci SomeModule.hs -someoptions +RTS -K150, > but > > this doesn't seem to have any effect. > > Try +RTS -K150M. > -K150 means 15

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2007-10-17 Thread Tim Chevalier
On 10/17/07, Maurí­cio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I get this error message when testing a function > in ghci: > > *** Exception: stack overflow > > I admit I didn't care about efficiency when I > wrote that function, but I'm almost sure it is not > supposed to eat all my memory. Do I ne

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Stack overflow in ghci

2007-10-17 Thread Brent Yorgey
On 10/17/07, Maurí­cio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I get this error message when testing a function > in ghci: > > *** Exception: stack overflow > > I admit I didn't care about efficiency when I > wrote that function, but I'm almost sure it is not > supposed to eat all my memory. Do I