Re: stack overflow

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi,

"Mikael Djurfeldt" <mikael@djurfeldt.com> writes:

> I think you should measure the effect on performance.  Even if the hit
> isn't dramatic, remember that many a little makes a mickle...

Indeed...

> Speaking as a user, I would prefer a solution where the evaluator
> measures stack size the same way as currently (i.e. without the need
> to do extra work at every return).  It is possible to estimate the
> average sizes of evaluator stack frames during startup and use this as
> a conversion factor in the debug-options interface (scm_debug_opts) so
> that the user setting is approximately consistent between platforms.

Hmm, I don't see how we could reliably estimate this, and I'm afraid it
would add non-determinism (e.g., estimate that varies with the phase of
moon, dubious estimates, loads of users suddenly reporting stack
overflows because Fedora Core now ships with a bleeding-edge compiler
noone else uses, etc.).

That said, I agree that an overhead-free solution similar to the current
one is preferable.

Thanks,
Ludovic.