Browse thread
Stack size on OS X
-
Christophe Raffalli
-
John Whitington
-
Christophe Raffalli
- John Whitington
-
Christophe Raffalli
-
John Whitington
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2009-11-30 (22:21) |
From: | John Whitington <john@c...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Stack size on OS X |
Hi Christophe, On 30 Nov 2009, at 21:52, Christophe Raffalli wrote: not carefull, > although quite rare in OCaml). >> On first compiling my codebase (about 100,000 lines) on a machine with limited stack size, it took only about a day to fix up. >> >> I agree that, morally, stack space available and general memory available should be roughly equivalent concepts (like with Linux), but sometimes it's easier to give in - after all, how are you to estimate the size you actually need accurately? >> > I do not understand what you mean ? stack size + heap size = maximum of > available memory as in linux is the best ? In the sense that, since Linux expands the stack as needed, one needn't worry about a program which uses x Mb of stack being any more likely to 'crash' than one which uses x Mb of heap. So, the total usage of a program (stack + heap) is the only metric needed. Unless (as you say) performance is to be considered. Cheers, -- John Whitington Director, Coherent Graphics Ltd http://www.coherentpdf.com/