mwm@mica.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/20/89)
In <Aug.18.23.07.59.1989.554@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) says: <Better yet, why not have the executable include info like what size <the stack SHOULD be, then remove the STACK command from the C: <directory and just rely on programmers to make sure that their <executable have the right info. (Of course, in the phase-out stage <the value set in the STACK command [which would have an -l option, of <course] which would set up a default size for older programs. This is basically what the WorkBench does - the icon allows the default stack size to be overridden. And this would be a major improvement on the current situation. However, the stack useage of many commands depends on their input data: both C compilers use recursive descent parsers for statements; programs that walk the file tree may use the program stack to keep track of where they are (treewalk doesn't - that was a design goal); programs that allow macros to invoke themselves may use the program stack for tracking macro return values, etc. Because of this, you can't just do away with user stack control. You have to provide a command that allows the user to force a program to run with a specified stack size, instead of the default. Some way of changing the default should also be provided. This also has to be made to work with the various resident facilities in a reasonable manner. <mike -- My feet are set for dancing, Mike Meyer Won't you turn your music on. mwm@berkeley.edu My heart is like a loaded gun, ucbvax!mwm Won't you let the water run. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET