From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: stack size info Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:01:32 -0400 Message-ID: References: <32610487.225511174576772062.JavaMail.www@wwinf4103> <857it9m911.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: ttn@gnuvola.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1174662143 11287 80.91.229.12 (23 Mar 2007 15:02:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:02:23 +0000 (UTC) To: alinsoar@voila.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 23 16:02:13 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 1HUlHH-0004Dr-7T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:02:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlJB-0001V5-KD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:04:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlIl-0000u2-6D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:03:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlIj-0000qQ-Fd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:03:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUlIj-0000qC-6C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.agora-net.com ([67.59.132.6]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HUlGn-0000n9-Vy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:01:34 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by mail.agora-net.com with local (Exim 4.50) id 1HUlGm-0002eQ-LH; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:01:32 -0400 In-reply-to: <857it9m911.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:24:10 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ttn@agora-net.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.agora-net.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:68400 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. 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. is that wording ok? thi