From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: stack overflow limit Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 15:51:22 -0300 Message-ID: References: <62EAF87B4F294B2FB9F2ED7EC6E562D0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304535096 17611 80.91.229.12 (4 May 2011 18:51:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 04 20:51:31 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAX-000643-IY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 20:51:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53196 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAX-0005b7-55 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:51:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAU-0005ar-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:51:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAT-0000bf-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:51:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:53266) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAT-0000bb-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:51:25 -0400 Original-Received: from 121-249-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.249.121]:19320 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhAS-0003iM-MH; Wed, 04 May 2011 14:51:24 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9EA9966168; Wed, 4 May 2011 15:51:22 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <62EAF87B4F294B2FB9F2ED7EC6E562D0@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 4 May 2011 10:04:40 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 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:139114 Archived-At: > Not a request or a suggestion. I'm just wondering about the stack size limit > (e.g. for regexp search, search.c). > Would it make sense to make it any bigger, given that machines > nowadays are more powerful and have more memory, or do you consider > that pretty much all such stack overflows (e.g. for regexp matching) > are just due to poorly chosen regexps? IIRC this depends on the OS stack size, which hasn't grown nearly as fast as hardware resources. Stefan