[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA? |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:56:30 +0300 |
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:38:03 +0400
> From: Dmitry Antipov <address@hidden>
> Cc: David Kastrup <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>
> On 06/19/2014 10:21 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> >> 64kB feels arbitrary. I cannot really think of an architecture where
> >> 64kB would be feasible and 128kB not. ±32kB is a plausible offset for
> >> some architectures.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with machine architectures.
> > It's only related to the OS chosen size of the stack.
>
> IIUC this means that if alloca is limited to < 32K, stack may be expanded
> with just one instruction because increment fits into an immediate operand.
> Otherwise there should be a few more load/store/add instructions.
OK, but is that worse than using xmalloc in that case?
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, (continued)
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Stefan Monnier, 2014/06/19
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Dmitry Antipov, 2014/06/20
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Andreas Schwab, 2014/06/20
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, David Kastrup, 2014/06/20
Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Stefan Monnier, 2014/06/19
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/06/19
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Stefan Monnier, 2014/06/19
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/06/20
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Stefan Monnier, 2014/06/20
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/06/20
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Stefan Monnier, 2014/06/20
- Re: Enlarge MAX_ALLOCA?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/06/20