On Sunday, September 21, 2014 09:36:25 PM Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > On Sep 20, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 03:27:25PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > >> I suspect it was done out of reasons of being overly conservative in > >> interpreting RLIMIT_STACK. I think it is quite surprising behavior > >> though and would rather we make your option the default and implement > >> what the Open Group says above. > > > > Ok, below is the patch. I felt bad about adding yet another magic and > > undocumented tunable to our libthr. Since there seems to be no > > alternative than a tunable to enforce old behaviour, I documented > > the quirks I am aware of. > > Why do we need to support the old behavior? Any program that ran in the old > model will run in the new. In the unlikely event that someone was using > the old scheme for administrative control, there are other mechanisms for > this already available that we can point them to instead.
I agree with this. In my experience the issue it has always been the opposite (people having issues with the main stack shrinking). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"