joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) (01/22/90)
Can somebody help me with this error:
'STACK OVERFLOW, SYSTEM HALTED'.
I would like to know:
- Is it related to a certain dos-version.
- Can I write a program that ignores this problem.
===============================================================================
Joep Mathijssen
TNO Institute for Perception
P.O. Box 23 Phone : +31 34 63 562 11
3769 ZG Soesterberg E-mail: tnosoes!joep@mcvax.cwi.nl
The Netherlands or: uunet!mcvax!tnosoes!joep
===============================================================================risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) (01/24/90)
joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) writes: >Can somebody help me with this error: > 'STACK OVERFLOW, SYSTEM HALTED'. The MS-DOS -originated STACK OVERFLOWs are generated mainly by several interrupts occurring simultaneously or in a short period of time in their reverse priority order (or even a single interrupt, whose handler is incorrectly designed so that it clears it "served"-flag before actually being that). The result is that the stack soon fills up of saved CPU registers and return addresses... Fortunately there is a CONFIG.SYS setting in MS-DOS versions (I think) above 3.00 . That is STACKS=<number-of-int-stacks>,<size-of-each> . For example, in CONFIG.SYS, STACKS=8,512 creates 8 stacks for interrupt service routines, each 512 bytes in size (and spends memory accordingly). The STACKS=0,0 disables stack switching feature. As far as I know, the default is 9,128 , which should of course be exceeded in order to fix the problem. One more thing, the STACKS setting affects only those interrupts that MSDOS.SYS or IO.SYS is responsible to care for. I haven't seen specs for how one can use this in one's own devdrvs; if such have been seen I would like to know where to get that info. terveisin: Risto Lankinen --
rkl@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (kevin.laux) (01/25/90)
In article <672@tnosoes.UUCP>, joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) writes: > Can somebody help me with this error: > > 'STACK OVERFLOW, SYSTEM HALTED'. DOS itself has been corrupted when this message appears. The only recourse is to reboot the system so that a fresh copy of DOS is loaded. > I would like to know: > - Is it related to a certain dos-version. No. > - Can I write a program that ignores this problem. No. --rkl
tcm@srhqla.SR.COM (Tim Meighan) (01/25/90)
In article <672@tnosoes.UUCP> joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) writes: >Can somebody help me with this error: 'STACK OVERFLOW, SYSTEM HALTED'. > - Is it related to a certain dos-version. > - Can I write a program that ignores this problem. This is usually caused by a buggy program, or one that has not allocated enough stack space. It means that some process running in the computer keeps pushing (saving) information on the stack without ever pulling it off again -- sometimes a sign of a subroutine accidently calling itself over and over or some other infinite looping problem. What happens is that the stack finally fills up (it's only been allocated a certain amount of memory) and it has no way of saving any more info. Since you didn't mention the circumstances that cause the stack to overflow, it's hard to guess what is wrong here. However, it is not possible to ignore a stack overflow on a PC. Since the stack is usually used for very important stuff -- like pointers to where a subroutine is supposed to return to when it's done -- a stack overflow on a PC is catastrophic, and crashes the computer -- hence the SYSTEM HALTED message. If you can figure out exactly what circumstances cause this to happen, you will be that much closer to correcting the problem. Tim Meighan Silent Radio
dlo@ubc-idacom (Dennis Lo) (02/04/90)
I get this error when I hit a lot of keys in a short time (eg. if I press my hand on the keyboard) while running the fireworks program EXPLOD 2.0. The too-many-interupts explanation offered by one of the previous postings would explain this. However, this problem only happens on my machine (a '186 with a "LEO PC" BIOS) and only under DOS 3.2. This problem was discussed in this group a long time ago... I don't remember very clearly, but I think the conclusion then was that it was partly a problem with DOS 3.20, and that DOS 3.21 corrected this. I don't have DOS 3.21 so I can't verify this. Does anyone else remember? --- Dennis Lo dlo@idacom.cs.ubc.ca
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (02/08/90)
pipkins@qmsseq.imagen.com (Jeff Pipkins) writes: >In article <672@tnosoes.UUCP> joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) writes: >>Can somebody help me with this error: >> >> 'STACK OVERFLOW, SYSTEM HALTED'. >> >I know this is going to be a little hard for those of us who know better >to believe, but here goes. >I have seen this symptom caused by a hardware problem. This doesn't >necessarily mean that it's caused by hardware in your specific case, but >be aware that it is possible. [description of problem involving odd AT clone and odd 286 chups deleted] >Anyone else hear of this sort of thing? We have several IBM PCs that are rather old and well used. Like about 100 of them... A few of them will generate a stack overflow if you do a print-screen from inside a Turbo Pascal menu program we use. We swapped everything but the motherboard, even the CPU. The "bad" motherboards get the error, the others are just fine. It isn't a BIOS bug as the good machines and bad machines have the same BIOS version. By playing with various things, we could get other nasties to happen when we hit the printscreen key. But we never tracked it down. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short