From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA? Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:10:24 +0300 Message-ID: <83ha3grr8f.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sin0sx98.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnto98ch.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87oaxo7gc4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403248267 29268 80.91.229.3 (20 Jun 2014 07:11:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:11:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 20 09:11:00 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WxsyR-0003SS-7e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:10:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39315 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxsyQ-0001ay-PT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:10:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59097) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxsyI-0001ak-2s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:10:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WxsyC-00054q-Ho for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:10:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:42297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wxsy6-00053l-TS; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:10:39 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N7G00000H0VXY00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:10:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N7G000E1H9PXD20@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:10:37 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87oaxo7gc4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:172552 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:13:47 +0200 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > Stefan Monnier writes: >=20 > >> 64kB feels arbitrary. I cannot really think of an architecture = where > >> 64kB would be feasible and 128kB not. =B132kB is a plausible of= fset for > >> some architectures. > > > > This has nothing to do with machine architectures. > > It's only related to the OS chosen size of the stack. >=20 > It would be "only related to stack size" when there was a strictly > limited number of alloca allocations in the whole call stack since = the > limit is per alloca, not per Emacs invocation. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Can you elaborate, please?