From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: A Soare Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: stack size info Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:08:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <22933993.657431174662526198.JavaMail.www@wwinf4203> Reply-To: alinsoar@voila.fr NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1174662543 13956 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2007 15:09:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Emacs Dev \[emacs-devel\]" To: ttn@gnuvola.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 23 16:08:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HUlNt-0007Zx-NY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:08:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlPn-0004hI-Rr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:10:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlPk-0004hA-LL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlPi-0004gv-6H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlPi-0004gs-1G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:10:46 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp3.voila.fr ([193.252.22.173]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HUlNm-0002Y5-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:08:46 -0400 Original-Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf4203.voila.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4196F1C000C8; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:08:46 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from wwinf4203 (wwinf4203 [10.232.2.30]) by mwinf4203.voila.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 338701C000BB; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:08:46 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20070323150846211.338701C000BB@mwinf4203.voila.fr X-Originating-IP: [89.34.170.37] X-Wum-Nature: EMAIL-NATURE X-WUM-FROM: |~| X-WUM-TO: |~| X-WUM-CC: |~| X-WUM-REPLYTO: |~| X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:68401 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:24:10 +0100 > > A Soare writes: > > > STACKSIZE > > The maximum stack size this function needs. In case of recursion, > > every recursive call grows function's stack size with this constant. > > > > ######## > > > > This is a litte better? > > I don't think so. My guess is "The maximum stack size this function > needs for execution, disregarding further (including recursive) > function calls as those extend the stack on their own." > > i'm inclined to leave the docs alone. the node's entire context is a > single function and thus the STACKSIZE element of the byte-code function > object pertains to a single function call. I think this problem is not at all important, but at a first glance one can imagine something wrong. > > however, if pressed, i will suggest: > The maximum stack size this function might need when called. > > "might" because it is possible that any particular call uses less than > that amount. "when called" addresses recursion. > As you wish. One more important question is "The maximum stack size" or just simply "the stack size". I can not imagine an example in which this STACKSIZE is greater than the actual real size. Can somebody help me with an example, please? Thanks.