Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0700, Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think
Adrian Hey wrote:
John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
any issues with a huge stack per se, but it does not play nice with
garbage collection so may hurt your
Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm more than happy to change the defaults, if there's some agreement on
what the defaults should be. The current choice is somewhat historical
- we used to have a bound on both heap size and stack size, but the heap
size bound was removed because we felt that on balance
Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
any issues with a huge stack per se, but it does not
John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
any issues with a huge stack per se, but it does not play nice with
garbage collection so may hurt your performance and memory
Adrian Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Failing because the stack has
grown beyond some arbitrary (and typically small) size seems
bad to me.
Just FYI, nhc98 has a single memory area in which the stack and heap
grow towards each other. Memory exhaustion only happens when the stack
and heap meet
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Just FYI, nhc98 has a single memory area in which the stack and heap
grow towards each other. Memory exhaustion only happens when the stack
and heap meet in the middle and GC fails to reclaim any space.
However, it can only do this because it is single-threaded. As soon
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
as bad. Or at least it seems that way given that ghc run time
makes distinction between
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
as bad. Or at least it seems
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of stack (vs. using a lot of heap) generally regarded
as bad. Or at
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:40:24PM +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:24 +0100, Adrian Hey wrote:
Hello Folks,
Just wondering about this. Please understand I'm not asking why
programs use a lot of stack sometimes, but specifically why is
using a lot of
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
any issues with a huge stack per se, but it does not play nice with
garbage collection
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0700, Brandon Michael Moore wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:59:58PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
I believe it is because a stack cannot be garbage collected, and must be
traversed as roots for every garbage collection. I don't think there are
any issues
13 matches
Mail list logo
