To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68890
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 31 05:25:55 -0700 2006 ------- Michael, some comments: - If I understand correctly, reducing the stack sizes currently only reduces the (virtual) address room occupied. As we currently do not seem to have any problems with this, why should we reduce it? AFAIK, it basically comes with no price and only introduces risks (stackoverflow). - Why do you want to provide the stack size in frames? IMHO, specifying the size in bytes is mostly accurate and directly mimics "pthread_attr_setstacksize". You only can guess an average frame size, or, why should the frame size be 128? - I guess, you actually do not need to check against the minimum allowed stack size, "pthread_attr_setstacksize" does provide an error value in case setting did not succeed. - IMHO, the name "osl_createThreadWithStack" is misleading, as any created thread has a stack anyway. Something like "osl_createThreadWithStacksize" might be more appropriate, so providing new functions for every attribute, may be even in different combinations, does not scale too good. - An "unsigned" type (e.g. sal_uInt32) may be more appropriate for the number of frames, while the default could be expressed as "0". - You shouldn't need to patch VOS, VOS is outdated, obsolet and should be removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
