'stack overflow' message for Darwin; host hooks

[Zack Weinberg]

Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@apple.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 10:20  PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Cute, but would you mind putting some thought into a way to avoid a
>> re-proliferation of x-fragments?  I went to considerable effort to get
>> within epsilon of being able to eliminate that facility entirely.
>
> Yes, there's a way to eliminate all the new x-fragments and a bunch of
> t-fragments too: automatic dependency generation.

Okay, that gives me additional incentive to get automatic dependency
generation going.  (I have a plan; finding time is another question.)

>> I thought we had code in toplev.c to call rlimit() to set the soft
>> stack limit as high as it could go, rather than bothering the user
>> about it.
>>
> No, we don't; that would be bad, if the user sets a limit we should
> honour it.

I'm of two minds here.  On the one hand, honoring the user's limits is
a good thing; on the other hand, we know that the default stack limit
is too low for us on Darwin and it seems to me that we ought not to
make the user worry about that.

Maybe the *real* right thing is to figure out why we still need so
much stack and change that.  I remember that some work was done in
the past on allocating huge arrays with malloc instead of alloca...

zw