>>>>> "William" == William Brew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William> Raymond Toy wrote:
>> So does increasing the stack help? Or does your real application
>> exhibit some other problem now? It would be nice to know.
William> Q: So does increasing the stack help?
William> A: I'm confused. Your previous assertion was that a larger stack appeared
William> to solve the problem. The 3M estimate seems to say that the existing 8M
William> stack was plenty big.
Well, I was assuming 64 bytes for stack frame. That's the minimum on
sparc, so it could have been larger in the functions. I didn't look
to see how much the functions really took.
William> Q: Does the real application exhibit some other problem now?
William> A: Is there any way for me to test the real application with a larger
stack other than
William> to get a new snapshot? (if there is, then I don't know what it is) If
not, will the
William> forth coming snapshot have a larger stack for Solaris?
My apologies. I guess I wasn't clear. It's the C stack, not any of
the Lisp stacks. Just type ulimit -s <stacksize> in your shell and
try again. BTW, the Lisp control stack is 128 MB and the Lisp binding
stack is the same.
It would be nice if cmucl could catch this. I guess it means using an
alternate stack for signals, and I'd have to study that.
Ray
