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 reserve address space for a gigantic stack, but they only allocate physical memory as it is needed. Special tricks with "guard pages" are used to determine when a new page of physical memory needs to be added to the stack. >Another wording: on every system one could reach some stack limit, and >therefore one migth care about this figure. Yes, of course. Memory is not infinite, even on a 4GB system. >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) why this figure seems high to you, and (2) why you are worried about it? The stack doesn't actually use 4MB of physical memory. It only uses the memory that is required. X11 is a thoroughly modular and layered server. It nests extremely deeply -- much more deeply than a typical application. I'm not saying 4MB is absolutely necessary, but if cutting it to 1MB causes even a single crash, what's the point? >Is there a true need for such stack size ? Who cares? -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
