On 5/4/2012 10:08 PM, John Morris wrote: > I suppose that 2x-4x the original setting might possibly be enough, > probably don't need 256x. I'll wait to see if the list suggests any > heuristics for picking a good number.
The two main approaches I've seen used are to either rigorously prove the maximum stack size by analyzing the code (complex and generally not worth the hassle unless lives are at stake), or by filling the stack region with known values, running the code, seeing how much stack _actually_ got used, and adding a fudge factor. There are many other ways to tweak stack size, but since I doubt there is a strong need to minimize memory usage, adding a fudge factor (even 2x or 4x or more expected usage) seems reasonable. -- Charles Steinkuehler char...@steinkuehler.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
