Eric Covener wrote:
I'd set my ThreadStackSize really low, to 64 KB, and while that usually
lets you run without trouble
I was just about to document that _lowering_ the stack size with
ThreadStackSize is unreliable since the underlying call used only sets
a _minimum_ stack size, not an
I'd set my ThreadStackSize really low, to 64 KB, and while that usually lets
you run without trouble
I was just about to document that _lowering_ the stack size with
ThreadStackSize is unreliable since the underlying call used only sets
a _minimum_ stack size, not an actual one.
Did you have
On 10/27/2010 12:53 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
I'd set my ThreadStackSize really low, to 64 KB, and while that usually lets
you run without trouble
I was just about to document that _lowering_ the stack size with
ThreadStackSize is unreliable since the underlying call used only sets
a
Stefan:
This is PR 49437.
crypt_data is a bit more than 128K on my Linux box.
Yup, mine too, my bad -- typing while tired.
Any opinions how this could be improved?
- use malloc/free instead. This may be bad for performance (e.g.
glibc's malloc will use mmap/munmap by default for blocks
On Tuesday 05 October 2010, Chris Darroch wrote:
I stared at the definition of crypt_data in crypt.h, poked
around at various things, then gave up and went for quick bike
ride. The answer immediately popped to mind: I'd set my
ThreadStackSize really low, to 64 KB, and while that usually
Hi --
It's been ages since I wrote to the list; as always, my apologies.
I hope to get back to some actual programming soon, unless life gets
in the way again.
In the meantime, a quick note for anyone who might at some point
stumble over the same thing and go to Google for help. I set up a
