Hello, > Why is there a limitation on the stack size in GHC? Like heap where we > can limit the size by -M RTS option but the default is unlimited, why > not let the program use as big a stack as required? If not by default, > then by a separate option? > > Some of the functions that we write in recursive fashion will usually > cause a stack overflow, but will work fine if there is more stack > (suppose we are not worried about efficiency). And these functions > generally look nicer and compact than their tail recursive versions. > > Is this is a technical hurdle, or just a checkpoint for runaway > programs?
This was discussed a while ago on the ghc users mailing list. I think there was general agreement that this was bad, but that doing something better meant a lot of work for someone (who could be trusted to "get it right" :-) http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2007-May/012467.html Regards -- Adrian Hey _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
