On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Niko Matsakis <[email protected]> wrote: > If I understand correctly, what you are proposing is to offer fixed > size stacks and to use a guard page to check for stack overflow (vs a > stack preamble)? > > My two thoughts are: > > 1. I do think segmented stacks offer several tangible benefits: > > - Recursion limited only by available memory / address space > - Avoid chewing up address space on 32 bit builds > > However, I can accept that on balance they are not worth the price, > given that point #2 is probably not that important for 64-bit systems. > > It is sad to lose limitless recursion but typically one can rewrite > routines that recurse arbitrarily deep to use a stack on the heap, > though sometimes the code is very unnatural, and using a stack on the > heap will not play as well with lifetimes, since the compiler doesn't > know that you are obeying a stack discipline. >
I agree. This is why I think fixed-size stacks feel like a step backwards. There's still room to have optional segmented stacks, but it's going to require a lot of extra complexity to do right. > 2. I think that our official semantics for stack overflow should be > task failure, not abort. There are some technical challenges to be > overcome with regard to the best way to signal/detect stack overflow, > and I'm fine with this being a "todo" item (possibly for a long time). > But abort is wrong. > I don't know how to go about doing this, but am open to it. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
