[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: honoring gcc test stack size
From: |
Hans-Peter Nilsson |
Subject: |
Re: honoring gcc test stack size |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:12:30 +0100 |
> From: "Dave Korn" <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:50:42 -0000
> On 13 February 2008 16:36, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> As a datapoint, the standard per-thread stack allocation on win32 platforms
> is 2MB. That might make a more reasonable cutoff point, because in what's
> probably a bimodal distribution, it's the one and only datum that's stuck in
> the middle of the range, and we'd want it to fall in the big-stack side of any
> divide rather than the tiny-embedded-machine-stack side.
I don't understand. Maybe I don't understand, but I don't see
this "divide" you speak of. Or to the point, why would it be
easier to spot stack-dependent testcases by failing at both 8K
and 2M (and with reasons still undeclared) than to fail at 8K
and pass at 64M?
brgds, H-P
- honoring gcc test stack size, Joel Sherrill, 2008/02/12
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Hans-Peter Nilsson, 2008/02/12
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Joel Sherrill, 2008/02/12
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Joel Sherrill, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Hans-Peter Nilsson, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Joel Sherrill, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Hans-Peter Nilsson, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Joel Sherrill, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size, Hans-Peter Nilsson, 2008/02/13
- RE: honoring gcc test stack size, Dave Korn, 2008/02/13
- Re: honoring gcc test stack size,
Hans-Peter Nilsson <=