From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6727 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2002 21:32:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6612 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2002 21:32:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.ACT-Europe.FR) (212.157.227.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2002 21:32:34 -0000 Received: from paris.ACT-Europe.FR (paris.int.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.140]) by dublin.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9899622A102; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:32:33 +0100 (MET) Received: by paris.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix, from userid 527) id 818F22264C; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:32:33 +0100 (CET) To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, danny_r_smith_2001@yahoo.co.nz, dj@delorie.com Subject: binutils, why default stack size this low ? Message-Id: <20020116213233.818F22264C@paris.ACT-Europe.FR> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:08:00 -0000 From: obry@ACT-Europe.FR (Pascal Obry) X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 > Larger reserves limited the number of threads you could start. The > MSVC compiler had a much smaller reserve than Cygwin before the patch. Right, but this has the bad consequence to break some non-threaded programs. It was always possible to change the default stack size on the command line. Of course this is also true for non-threaded programs, but I think that most of the programs around us do not use threads. Even on the Ada world, where tasking is part of the language, we have many programs that do not use tasks (threads), and those who do does not have enough tasks to break the limit (which is around 35 if my memory is right). Pascal Obry.