This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: large array, ia64, "segmentation fault"

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
Cc: Discussion of Linux on the Intel IA-64 processor <ia64-list at redhat dot com>,gcc mail-list gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,RHEL3 RHEL3 <Taroon-list at redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:15:24 -0800
Subject: Re: large array, ia64, "segmentation fault"
References: <20041127021305.CDB229842C@baradas.org> <20041127032730.68740.qmail@web15307.mail.bjs.yahoo.com> <16811.28687.342535.525415@napali.hpl.hp.com>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:53:03AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:27:30 +0800 (CST), hx w <ye_hx_w@yahoo.com.cn> said:
> 
>   hx> Excuse me , In the REHL3 64bit platform ,how many can
>   hx> i increase the stack size? I mean the maximum size.
> 
> Depends on the shell.  With bash:
> 
> 	$ ulimit -s unlimited

Off topic, but risky advice has just been given.

This is not advisable, unless you want to risk waking the OOM-killer when
you accidentally write an infinite recursion.  At one time, "unlimited"
was the default in seveal GNU/Linux distros, and I ran into this problem
several times.

I would suggest choosing a limit that leaves room in your swap file in
case some program decides to use all the stack you allow it.

References:
- Re: large array, ia64, "segmentation fault"
  - From: Peter Barada
- Re: large array, ia64, "segmentation fault"
  - From: hx w
- Re: large array, ia64, "segmentation fault"
  - From: David Mosberger

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]